Hello all,
This is unusual as it is not really a Guile-specific message, but I
was reading recently about the r7rs process and then about SRFIs, and
I had an idea.
I think there should be a mailing list for people who implement
Schemes, to sort of coordinate our non-standard features. For
Putting it in single quotes should work. E.g. '[' . Similarly,
you can add a literal single quote by making it part of a character
class. E.g. ['] .
You're right, I should definitely add something about that to the documentation.
Any other weak parts you've noticed while perusing?
On Thu,
I'm having second thoughts about two of the patches:
* Patch 0010: `inf?' and `nan?' throw exceptions when applied to
non-numbers
Previously, these predicates would return #f in that case. I tend to
prefer strictness, but perhaps backward compatibility is more important
than strictness here.
I am writing C versions of R6RS div/mod/div0/mod0, as well as
div-and-mod and div0-and-mod0, for numbers.c.
I notice that numbers.c uses three different macros to define public
procedures: SCM_DEFINE, SCM_GPROC, and SCM_PRIMITIVE_GENERIC. I don't
see an obvious logic to the choices of which
Also hold off on patch 0014, which implements R6RS div/mod/div0/mod0.
I've decided to implement them in C instead.
Mark
Hello!
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
We could still use someone to do this -- to review the web site to see
if it actually expresses the message that we want to express, and to do
some PR. I think Guile 2.0 is a good story, but the press basically
needs to be spoon-fed, I think...
Hi Mark,
On Wed 26 Jan 2011 17:32, Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org writes:
I don't understand this change:
From c42d03050ea0f96556e73e405e530b78bb85aba7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 02:56:20 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] Add case for fractions
Heya Noah,
On Fri 10 Dec 2010 10:09, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Better late than never...
Indeed, and my apologies for only getting back to you now.
Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
My biggest question is, is this something that you would be interested
in having in
Hi Mark,
On Thu 27 Jan 2011 23:06, Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org writes:
I'm having second thoughts about two of the patches:
* Patch 0010: `inf?' and `nan?' throw exceptions when applied to
non-numbers
Previously, these predicates would return #f in that case. I tend to
prefer
On Wed 26 Jan 2011 23:46, Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org writes:
Attached is an improved version of my first 20 patches of numerics
bugfixes and changes for improved R6RS (and in some cases, R5RS!)
standards compliance. The first seven patches are unchanged from my
last post, but I rebased
On Wed 26 Jan 2011 19:31, Mike Gran spk...@yahoo.com writes:
recv, send, etc are clearly bytevector routines. But, if you want to keep
backward compatibility, you should have it handle both cases.
IMHO, the idea of deprecating the use of strings is the wrong one. Either
be bold and get rid
Heya Noah,
Replying out-of-order here.
On Sat 08 Jan 2011 18:27, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
Therefore, I think the path to a native-code VM is to leave the VM as
it is (except maybe reserve an opcode for native-code calls). Then I
write first a C parser for Guile and then a
On Thu 27 Jan 2011 20:58, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
We should create ‘branch_release-2-0’ once 1.9.15 is out.
Can we use some more sensible name? stable-2.0 or something?
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
Hi Mark,
On Fri 28 Jan 2011 01:47, Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org writes:
I notice that numbers.c uses three different macros to define public
procedures: SCM_DEFINE, SCM_GPROC, and SCM_PRIMITIVE_GENERIC. I don't
see an obvious logic to the choices of which macro to use. For
example,
Him
Therefore, I think the path to a native-code VM is to leave the VM as
it is (except maybe reserve an opcode for native-code calls). Then I
write first a C parser for Guile and then a converter program that
would take Guile's current VM and output a JIT VM like I've described.
Hah, it
Hello all,
I hope to not derail this much (if at all), but I just did some
checking, and I believe the following proposal was accepted as R7RS'
integer division functions. So it might be worth making Guile's like
that if we can.
http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/DivisionRiastradh
Noah
On Fri,
Hi!
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
On Thu 27 Jan 2011 20:58, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
We should create ‘branch_release-2-0’ once 1.9.15 is out.
Can we use some more sensible name? stable-2.0 or something?
I dislike the current convention but changing it could lead to
Heya,
On Thu 27 Jan 2011 06:17, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
The peg matcher is really awesome. I am glad to be able to use it soon.
Indeed! I'm looking forward to having it in Guile.
The reason I didn't merge it yet was twofold: (1) the commit logs were
not in the standard
On Jan 28, 2011, at 09:33, Noah Lavine wrote:
And also... why not rely on gcc's tail-call optimization, in the case
where it works? You can check for it at configure-time. I just ran
some small tests for tail-calls between functions in separate
compilation units and it shows that indeed,
Hello!
We could still use someone to do this -- to review the web site to see
if it actually expresses the message that we want to express, and to do
some PR. I think Guile 2.0 is a good story, but the press basically
needs to be spoon-fed, I think... Anyone want to take this one? I seem
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
I don't understand this change:
From c42d03050ea0f96556e73e405e530b78bb85aba7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 02:56:20 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] Add case for fractions with differing SCM_CELL_TYPE to
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
I think that certainly when it comes to numbers, strictness is good. In
particular the r6rs says:
(zero? z) procedure
(positive? x) procedure
(negative? x) procedure
(odd? n) procedure
(even? n) procedure
(finite? x)
Hello,
Indeed! I'm looking forward to having it in Guile.
Great! I don't intend to be pressuring you to merge it, by the way. I
hope my message didn't come across that way.
The reason I didn't merge it yet was twofold: (1) the commit logs were
not in the standard style, and (2) I wasn't
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Indeed! I'm looking forward to having it in Guile.
Great! I don't intend to be pressuring you to merge it, by the way. I
hope my message didn't come across that way.
The reason I didn't merge it yet was
24 matches
Mail list logo
