Heya Julian,
On Fri 28 Jan 2011 21:09, Julian Graham jool...@gmail.com writes:
Sure, I'd be happy to review the copy on the site.
Cool!
Additionally, when I spoke to Deborah Nicholson last summer about the
impending release, she connected me with an FSF newsletter contributor
to do an
On Sat 29 Jan 2011 01:05, Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org writes:
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
On Sat 29 Jan 2011 04:07, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
Yes, the binding stuff actually seemed very weird to me too, mostly
because it's very non-idiomatic. More specifically, the peg module
does most of its code generation in regular functions rather than
macros. safe-bind
On Sat 29 Jan 2011 05:15, Michael Lucy michaelgl...@gmail.com writes:
Also, macros are notoriously difficult to debug, especially when
they're generating several hundred lines of code that compiles fine
but mysteriously produces the wrong result after a seemingly trivial
change. So porting
Hi Andy!
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
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
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
And I don't recall the practical difference between GPROC and
PRIMITIVE_GENERIC.
I found the answer. According to a commit message by Mikael Djurfeldt
in 2003, all uses of SCM_GPROC should be converted to use
SCM_PRIMITIVE_GENERIC.
On Sat 29 Jan 2011 16:39, Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org writes:
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
And I don't recall the practical difference between GPROC and
PRIMITIVE_GENERIC.
I found the answer. According to a commit message by Mikael Djurfeldt
in 2003, all uses of SCM_GPROC should be
Hi Mark,
On Sat 29 Jan 2011 09:20, Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org writes:
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
if (SCM_CELL_TYPE (x) != SCM_CELL_TYPE (y))
+return SCM_BOOL_F;
Doesn't this prevent 1.0+0.0i from being eqv or equal to 1.0 ?
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
Hello all,
I have encountered a strange behavior in Guile, and I'm not sure what
to do about it. It happened when I was trying to test peg.scm. I ran
the test like this:
./check-guile peg.test
Testing /Users/noah/Desktop/guile/guile/meta/guile ... peg.test
with
Hello all,
I was recently reading the syntax-case documentation (as part of my
project to make peg.scm use syntax-case), and I hit a paragraph that I
found difficult to understand. I think I figured out what it means.
The attached patch changes the paragraph to something that I think
would have
Hello all,
Sorry for the late notice, but I'm about halfway through porting
peg.scm to use hygienic macros, so if anyone else was thinking of
doing it, you might want to save your effort for something else. Or
email me and I'll send you what I have.
I hope no one else has already started.
Noah
Hi,
To get guile-1.9.14 cross built for mingw, I re-updated gnulib
to include socket-related modules (starting with accept here)
gnulib-tool --import --dir=. --lib=libgnu --source-base=lib --m4-base=m4
--doc-base=doc --tests-base=tests --aux-dir=build-aux --libtool
--macro-prefix=gl
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
if (SCM_CELL_TYPE (x) != SCM_CELL_TYPE (y))
+return SCM_BOOL_F;
Doesn't this prevent 1.0+0.0i from being eqv or equal to 1.0 ?
No, because 1.0+0.0i never exists in the current code.
At the top of numbers.c it says:
/* General assumptions:
* All
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
* libguile/numbers.c (scm_div, scm_mod, scm_div_and_mod, scm_div0,
scm_mod0, scm_div0_and_mod0): New extensible procedures `div', `mod',
`div-and-mod', `div0', `mod0', `div0-and-mod0'.
I wonder; should we use Taylor Campbell's names? From
Hi Noah,
Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
I think there should be a mailing list for people who implement
Schemes, to sort of coordinate our non-standard features. For
instance, you could email the list and say hey, Guile is thinking of
adding a unicode library with this
Hello!
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
On Fri 28 Jan 2011 21:09, Julian Graham jool...@gmail.com writes:
[...]
Additionally, when I spoke to Deborah Nicholson last summer about the
impending release, she connected me with an FSF newsletter contributor
to do an interview. Now that the
Hello,
I think comp.lang.scheme is already a good place for this. You quickly
get feedback and many implementors seem to participate in it.
Oh, great. I didn't know about that.
Although I must say, it seems like there is a lot less coordination
among Schemes right now than there should be.
Hi Jan,
Thanks for the report and patches!
Jan Nieuwenhuizen janneke-l...@xs4all.nl writes:
To get guile-1.9.14 cross built for mingw, I re-updated gnulib
to include socket-related modules (starting with accept here)
gnulib-tool --import --dir=. --lib=libgnu --source-base=lib
Hi Jan,
Jan Nieuwenhuizen janneke-l...@xs4all.nl writes:
From ed1507425da819363cc6592ee033076838c82051 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen jann...@gnu.org
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 17:31:17 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] Add dynamic relocation support, default off.
2005-06-08 Jan
On 29 Jan 2011, at 21:53, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
I think there should be a mailing list for people who implement
Schemes, to sort of coordinate our non-standard features. ...
I think comp.lang.scheme is already a good place for this. You
quickly
get feedback and many implementors seem to
I was playing with GOOPS and noticed this bug:
scheme@(guile-user) (use-modules (oop goops))
scheme@(guile-user) (define-method (+ (x list) (y list)) (next-method))
scheme@(guile-user) (+ '() '())
oop/goops/compile.scm:48:35: In procedure car:
oop/goops/compile.scm:48:35: Wrong type argument
Hello all,
I decided to search for the rationale for the R6RS `div0-and-mod0' set
of operators. Here's what I found from Will Clinger:
http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-77/mail-archive/msg00505.html
What I take from this is that the designers of the R6RS division
operators placed emphasis on the
22 matches
Mail list logo
