Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators

Note that 121 is withdrawn, so people should implement 158. On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 1:38 AM Mark H Weaver wrote: > Hi Arthur, > > "Arthur A. Gleckler" writes: > > It's not a bad idea for the sample implementation to be as clear as > > possible at the expense of performance. > > I agree that

Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators

Back in July 2020, Mark Weaver wrote: Also, the provided implementations of 'generator-find', 'generator-any' > and 'generator-every' are incorrect: Shiro Kawai has now fixed these bugs, and they have been merged into SRFI 121. Note that even if it doesn't become part of Guile's

Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators

ach is called until it is exhausted in left to right order. > PS: One of my own issues with SRFI 158 is that accumulators are not > that well-designed from a logical point of view. I summarized it here: > https://srfi-email.schemers.org/srfi-158/msg/6219505/. A follow-up > thread begins her

Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators

Mark Weaver wrote in July 2019: Also, the provided implementations of 'generator-find', 'generator-any' > and 'generator-every' are incorrect: I appreciate your finding these bugs. I wish, however, that you had also sent them to .

Re: Segfault while building on 64-bit Cygwin

Excellent, and thank you all! I've been WIndowsless for a few weeks, but that should change again soon. On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 6:23 PM Mike Gran wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 09:46:04AM -0800, Charles Stanhope wrote: > > Andy, I don't know if you'd want to continue this here or on > >

Re: Segfault while building on 64-bit Cygwin

\.libs\guile.exe, pid 62833, thread main cs=0033 ds=002B es=002B fs=0053 gs=002B ss=002B I can't imagine what you can make of that. On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 10:54 AM John Cowan wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 8:51 AM Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > >> That I understand.

Re: Segfault while building on 64-bit Cygwin

ot;_rl_get_keymap_name", referenced from: _scm_init_readline in readline.o ld: symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: error: linker command failed with exit code 1 (use -v to see invocation) On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:35 PM Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hi, > >

Re: bug#39118: Segfault while building on 64-bit Cygwin

I'm no longer talking about Cygwin (which builds fine without JIT). I'm now talking about MacOS Catalina, which needs a core dump to debug, but on which nobody seems to know how to enable core dumps. On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 1:41 PM szgyg wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 10:01:58AM +0100,

Re: Segfault while building on 64-bit Cygwin

nd SIGSEGV on running processes and no dumps appear in /cores. On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 4:02 AM Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hello, > > John Cowan skribis: > > > Yes, gladly, but I don't know how to get one in this context. > > You would unpack, configure, and build like you

Re: Segfault while building on 64-bit Cygwin

Yes, gladly, but I don't know how to get one in this context. Do I need to add some flags to the Makefile, and if so, where? (It's a twisty maze of passages, all different.) . Note that this *is* a build with JIT enabled; when I disable it using the env variable, there are no errors and 3.0.0

Re: bug#39118: GNU Guile 2.9.9 Released [beta]

Okay, with GUILE_JIT_THRESHOLD set to -1 in the environment, I can build Guile under Cygwin. There are two test failures which probably reflect differences between newlib and glibc: ERROR: time.test: strptime: GNU %s format: strftime fr_FR.utf8 - arguments: ((system-error "strptime" "~A"

Re: GNU Guile 2.9.9 Released [beta]

Makefile:1735: all] Error 2 All previous problems (which were easy to work around) have gone away in this release, which is progress, but it doesn't get me past Guile 2.2. John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org Your worships will perhaps be thinking that it is an

Re: bug#38607: unable to build guile 2.9.7 on OS X 10.14.6

That makes three different operating environments exposing this exact build failure: MacOS, Cygwin, Ubuntu Xenial. On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 1:17 AM Aleix Conchillo Flaqué wrote: > Hi there! > > Trying to build 2.9.7 on OS X and getting the error below. > > I'd be happy to try more things if you

Re: GNU Guile 2.9.7 Released [beta]

ror 139 make[2]: Leaving directory '/home/rr828893/guile-2.9.7/bootstrap' Makefile:1849: recipe for target 'all-recursive' failed make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/rr828893/guile-2.9.7' Makefile:1735: recipe for target 'all' failed make: *** [all

Re: German translation of R5RS

THUNK argument is referred to > as PROC. Should such (minor) errors be fixed? One of my patches also > fixes a misplaced space character in the Texinfo. > http://mumble.net/~kelsey/r5rs-errata.html are the semi-official errata. IMO you should incorporate them. -- John Cowan

Re: Mistakes in the R7RS-small formal denotational semantics

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote: I believe I've found a few mistakes in the formal denotational semantics > for R7RS-small. The scheme-reports mailing list seems to be gone, so > I'm not sure where to send this. > I'm forwarding this to