Hi Stefan,
Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ta...@spray.se writes:
Anyway consider a list [a a b b] and let a be a function so that
(a [a a b b]) - (cons [a a] [b b])
(b [b b]) - (cons [b b] [])
e.g. a macthes a sequence of a:s and b macthes a sequence of b:s. a
failure in this
Hey Ludovic,
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Ludovic Courtès l...@gnu.org wrote:
I believe this patch fixes the problem:
http://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/guile.git/commit/?id=f57fdf07d6374028f35bcb1ee748a94022deda6d
Basically ‘force’ was leaking memory because it uses ‘lock-mutex’, which
was
On Thursday, September 02, 2010 05:59:59 pm Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Hi Stefan,
Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ta...@spray.se writes:
Anyway consider a list [a a b b] and let a be a function so that
(a [a a b b]) - (cons [a a] [b b])
(b [b b]) - (cons [b b] [])
e.g. a macthes
On Thursday, September 02, 2010 05:59:59 pm Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Hmm. So IIUC, the sub-pattern ‘( a a.r1)’ matches anything that
is a match according to custom matcher ‘a’, and binds the sub-match
‘r1’ of ‘a’ to ‘a.r1’, right?
Hmm maybe need to clarify
a.r1 is just a variable name a is a
Heya again,
On Wed, Sep 01 2010, Jose A. Ortega Ruiz wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31 2010, Andy Wingo wrote:
Hi,
Can you submit a test please, also? This patch is correct, but with
--enable-deprecated builds, it should be unnecessary.
Okay, test added (i'm not sure if there's something to do
Hi!
Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ta...@spray.se writes:
On Thursday, September 02, 2010 05:59:59 pm Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Hmm. So IIUC, the sub-pattern ‘( a a.r1)’ matches anything that
is a match according to custom matcher ‘a’, and binds the sub-match
‘r1’ of ‘a’ to ‘a.r1’, right?
On Wed 01 Sep 2010 15:23, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
So, unless I’m missing an elegant design trick to avoid this, I think
you’re bound to use heuristics to filter them out (e.g., get rid of
modules whose name contains white spaces.)
We can add flags to modules to indicate that
Hi :)
On Wed 01 Sep 2010 09:04, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
PS: I’m reviving the thread because I’m consistently seeing a 10%
performance degradation in the SRFI-1 rewrite in Scheme, which I’m
not comfortable with (not that “higher-level languages are
inefficient” song
---BeginMessage---
Hi,
Sorry for the delay. The reason I was holding off was because my
backwards-compatibility shims should have been working, but they
weren't, and so I wanted to commit the fix to the back-compat shims,
then have your test-case go in (to verify back-compatibility), then have
