Andy Wingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 23:58 +, Neil Jerram wrote:
>> read_without_guile_data *data = (read_without_guile_data *)data;
>
> Didn't fix the issue for me, same symptoms. Can't run pre-inst-guile; it
> gives me:
>
> (pygst gst) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I believe it *really* makes sense to turn `scm_is_pair ()' into a macro.
>
>--- orig/libguile/pairs.h
>+++ mod/libguile/pairs.h
>@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@
> SCM_API void scm_error_pair_access (SCM);
> #endif
>
>-SCM_API int
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> I believe it *really* makes sense to turn `scm_is_pair ()' into a macro.
Yep. But what about an inline function? There is some machinery in
inline.h for this and we already use it for scm_cell, for example.
> +#define scm_is_pair(__obj) (SCM_I_CON
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> read_without_guile_data *data = (read_without_guile_data *)data;
>
> ... the second "data" should be "raw_data".
Aaarg! :-/ (This wouldn't happen with 'let'...)
Thanks for finding this.
--
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226
Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> OK. Let's put it in the doc then, too. :-)
I added it.
___
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> You may have already noticed this, but I think the semantics of
> SRFI-45 force/delay are supposed to be a strict superset of R5RS
> force/delay, so in theory we might be able to have just one type of
> promise.
As far as I can tell there's two types of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> * pairs.c (scm_is_pair): Only defined for binary compatibility.
scm_is_pair is new in the cvs head, no need for a compatibility func.
___
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hi,
>
> Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> This is in CVS now.
>
> Thanks Neil! BTW, what do you think of `*current-reader*' instead of
> `current-reader' as a fluid name?
What other *star* names do we have? I can only think of *features*.
Hi,
I believe it *really* makes sense to turn `scm_is_pair ()' into a macro.
Before:
% cumulative self self total
time seconds secondscalls s/call s/call name
14.74 17.9917.99 25918076 0.00 0.00 scm_is_pair
13.72 34.7
Hi,
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is in CVS now.
Thanks Neil! BTW, what do you think of `*current-reader*' instead of
`current-reader' as a fluid name? It would be more conventional and
consistent with the rest of Guile (e.g., `current-module' names a
procedure, not the fluid
Hi Marius,
Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, SMOBs could profit from a guarantee about the order of
> finalization, but I don't think that guarantee can be implemented
> cheaply enough. (Or can it?)
>
> So, my current point of view is that smobs have to suffer in order to
> make
Hi,
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 23:58 +, Neil Jerram wrote:
> read_without_guile_data *data = (read_without_guile_data *)data;
Didn't fix the issue for me, same symptoms. Can't run pre-inst-guile; it
gives me:
(pygst gst) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/guile/guile-core$ ./pre-inst-guile
ERROR: In proce
Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When using #:replace, the exporting module is making the promise that
> the warning can be surpressed because everything is alright. It can
> only do that if the replacing binding is compatible with what it
> replaces.
So I think we disagree. ;-) Ba
13 matches
Mail list logo
