Re: [PATCH] Avoid `SCM_VALIDATE_LIST ()'

Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Neil Jerram escreveu: >> 2008/9/2 Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> If you are doing memq? for something you already know to >>> somewhere in front of the list [...] >> >> Why would you do that? In two senses: >> >> 1. I know memq gives you

Re: development goals

Neil Jerram escreveu: > 2008/9/7 Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> OK - I will admit that interpreter/GC hacking is cool, but on the >> downside, when I try to do anything, the intertia/resistance I feel in >> the community here is a big turnoff for me. > > Do you mean regarding releases (a

Re: [PATCH] Avoid `SCM_VALIDATE_LIST ()'

Neil Jerram escreveu: > 2008/9/2 Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> If you are doing memq? for something you already know to >> somewhere in front of the list [...] > > Why would you do that? In two senses: > > 1. I know memq gives you the tail of the list, but I usually use its > result o

boot-9 compiling in guile-vm

Hi, I finally pushed some patches I had that enable compilation of boot-9.scm in guile-vm. Give it a pull. NB, you'll have to rebuild all your .go files -- make clean before making. Quick observations before I attempt to sleep: * Guile load time is only slightly better (~10%). I think this is

Re: development goals (was: [PATCH] Avoid `SCM_VALIDATE_LIST ()')

2008/9/7 Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > OK - I will admit that interpreter/GC hacking is cool, but on the > downside, when I try to do anything, the intertia/resistance I feel in > the community here is a big turnoff for me. Do you mean regarding releases (as you say more on below)? Or

Re: [PATCH] Avoid `SCM_VALIDATE_LIST ()'

Neil Jerram escreveu: > Since you mention 'cleanups', I must say that I agree with Ludovic, > that it would have been preferable to post the patch for > review/discussion before committing it, since that is our (majority) > current practice. Sure there may have been a few exceptions, but only > fo

Re: [PATCH] Avoid `SCM_VALIDATE_LIST ()'

2008/9/7 Ken Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Not if you want to build and install the full guile package and then link > emacs against libguile, which is how I've generally done it. Or if you want > to build both emacs and guile executables at once so you can test libguile > without the rest of e

Re: [PATCH] Avoid `SCM_VALIDATE_LIST ()'

On Sep 7, 2008, at 11:24, Neil Jerram wrote: I'm using a Mac as my main machine these days. The Emacs unexec mechanism interacts badly with the Mac version of malloc, so Emacs uses its own version specially tailored to use Mac system allocation routines in a way that works with unexec. Guil

Re: [PATCH] Avoid `SCM_VALIDATE_LIST ()'

2008/9/7 Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Actually, since the couple of cleanups (or as some on this list like > to say: 'cleanups') I did, the GC has become a lot more simple. Actually I did get that impression, from my look so far at your cleanup patch - i.e. that it is now easier to un

Re: development goals (was: [PATCH] Avoid `SCM_VALIDATE_LIST ()')

Andy Wingo escreveu: >> I am not using and enhancing GUILE primarily for fun. > > Then why do it? > > I'm serious. Because I take my (LilyPond) users serious. OK - I will admit that interpreter/GC hacking is cool, but on the downside, when I try to do anything, the intertia/resistance I feel i

Re: [PATCH] Avoid `SCM_VALIDATE_LIST ()'

Hi Ken, 2008/9/7 Ken Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Still keeping it in the back of my mind, but first my attempts to use SVK to > mirror the Emacs repository broke (naturally, after it had looked solid > enough that I had switched to it for my Emacs development work), and now > Guile uses git,

Re: [PATCH] Avoid `SCM_VALIDATE_LIST ()'

2008/9/7 Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I am participating in GUILE since it is a foundation of LilyPond. As > far as I am concerned, it should be fast, bug-free, standards-compliant > and should not have any code that is so complex that it will bitrot when > its developer takes off. A

Re: [PATCH] Avoid `SCM_VALIDATE_LIST ()'

Neil Jerram escreveu: > 2008/9/7 Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> I am not using and enhancing GUILE primarily for fun. A large part of >> the lilypond architecture in written in it, and performance problems >> in GUILE often translate directly to problems in LilyPond. The reason >> I del

Re: [PATCH] Avoid `SCM_VALIDATE_LIST ()'

Hi, On Sun 07 Sep 2008 04:33, "Han-Wen Nienhuys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I am not using and enhancing GUILE primarily for fun. Then why do it? I'm serious. > I feel using GUILE has been a big mistake -especially considering the > amount of time I sank into it. I seriously looked into mo

Re: [PATCH] Avoid `SCM_VALIDATE_LIST ()'

2008/9/7 Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I am not using and enhancing GUILE primarily for fun. A large part of > the lilypond architecture in written in it, and performance problems > in GUILE often translate directly to problems in LilyPond. The reason > I delved in the GC years ago wa

Re: [PATCH] Avoid `SCM_VALIDATE_LIST ()'

2008/9/7 Mikael Djurfeldt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >From my experience, there was a huge improvement in scheme program > development time when we moved to real type-checking of lists from the > kind of type-checking you seem to want to re-introduce. It's much > easier to debug code if you can assum