I just found that (ice-9 optargs) has defmacro*, which made me think about a
question that has popped up on irc about once every 4 months: why isn't there a
define-inlinable*?
I have a working implementation, and I want to know if there is any interest to
include it in guile. Either in b
Hey,
Andy Wingo writes:
> What should we do here? Here are a few options:
>
> 1) Require people to recompile all the time. Sucks.
>
> 2) Implement some sort of proper dependency management. Tricky,
> because installing a new version of package A could force a
> recompile of all
> From:Andy Wingo
>
> module/ice-9/boot-9.scm:118:20: In procedure module-lookup: Unbound
> variable: %uri?-procedure
FWIW, I got the same error while hacking one day. I couldn't track it down so
I did a make distclean and it went away. Glad to know that it wasn't just me.
-Mike
I was doing some bisecting. I started at v2.0.0, did a full clean and
build then went to df1297956211b7353155c9b54d7e9c22d05ce493 and built
without a "clean". However I got an error:
GUILEC web/request.go
;;; note: source file /home/wingo/src/guile/module/web/uri.scm
;;; newe
On Thu 07 Apr 2011 00:24, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> Updated patch attached, is it OK to push this way?
>
> Yes, please go ahead!
FWIW:
Running r6rs-arithmetic-flonums.test
ERROR: r6rs-arithmetic-flonums.test: fixnum->flonum: simple - arguments:
((wrong-type-arg #f "Wrong type to
Hello!
Andy Wingo writes:
> Running r6rs-arithmetic-flonums.test
> ERROR: r6rs-arithmetic-flonums.test: fixnum->flonum: simple - arguments:
> ((wrong-type-arg #f "Wrong type to apply: ~S" (#)
> (#)))
>
> In practice this means that anyone that compiled something that uses
> fixnum? against Gui
Heya :)
On Mon 11 Apr 2011 22:01, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> I don't know if this is important, as R6RS users probably have lots of
>> other carnage to deal with, but it is strictly an ABI break.
>
> Well well, they’ll need to recompile. My feeling is that it’s
> acceptable, but I
ll well, they’ll need to recompile. My feeling is that it’s
>> acceptable, but I don’t have a strong opinion.
>
> In this case it probably is, but we don't really know what users there
> are. But let's please keep this general issue in mind in the future.
>
Agreed.
;> How about:
>>
>> Procedures defined with @code{define-inlinable} are @emph{always}
>> inlined, at all call sites. This eliminates function call overhead at
>> the expense of an increase in code size.
>>
> Folded in, with the addition of using "
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hello!
>
> Andreas Rottmann writes:
>
>> Subject: Move `define-inlinable' into the default namespace
>>
>> +@node Inlinable Procedures
>> +@subsection Inlinable Procedures
>> +
>> +You can define an ``
Hello!
Andreas Rottmann writes:
> From: Andreas Rottmann
> Subject: Move `define-inlinable' into the default namespace
>
> * module/ice-9/boot-9.scm (define-inlineable): Moved here from SRFI-9.
> * module/srfi/srfi-9 (define-inlinable): Removed here.
>
> * d
11 matches
Mail list logo
