Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Since, I consider compilers that don't support inlining unimportant, I'd
happily live without the `inline.c' stuff. I.e., I'd put this in
`pairs.h':
static SCM_C_INLINE int
scm_is_pair (...)
With compilers not supporting inlining, this
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
The patch below does two things:
1. It introduces `scm_take_locale_symbol ()'.
2. It modifies `scm_from_locale_symbol ()' so that it doesn't create a
Scheme string to do the job.
This second modification has a
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Han-Wen Nienhuys) writes:
I think it looks OK. If noone steps forward, I will integrate it.
Thanks!
Have
you considered asking Marius for CVS write access?
One might arguably consider it inadequate. Beside, as long as patches
are reviewed in a reasonable amount of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Han-Wen Nienhuys) writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
This second modification has a nice effect: it can significantly reduce
the number of objects created at load-time. Unfortunately, Guile's
built-in reader always produces
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In fact, I think we'd greatly benefit from using a distributed revision
control system like GNU Arch: it really makes it easier to collaborate,
Yes, -- FWIW, I warmly recommend darcs, which is much easier to use.
I just
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Han-Wen Nienhuys) writes:
Yes, -- FWIW, I warmly recommend darcs, which is much easier to use.
I don't think there's such a huge difference, especially when looking at
[0]. Additionally, most of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Han-Wen Nienhuys) writes:
Yes, -- FWIW, I warmly recommend darcs, which is much easier to use.
I don't think there's such a huge difference, especially when looking at
[0]. Additionally, most of the commands shown there now have
easy-looking counterparts taken from Bazaar,
On Jan 24, 2006, at 16:06, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Han-Wen Nienhuys) writes:
Yes, -- FWIW, I warmly recommend darcs, which is much easier to
use.
I don't think there's such a huge difference,
Hmm, what I'm trying to say here that lazy is not some standard,
established terminology, and if we come up with something better, we
should feel free to change terminology.
Yes, that makes good sense. I can't think of anything better than
pre-unwind, so I'll use that in all new names. I
