Hi Julian,
Julian Graham jool...@gmail.com writes:
On a related note, have you had a chance to review the R6RS library
search mechanism I proposed a while back? [1] Using that algorithm
(and going with the `ice-9' prefix), your modules could be wrapped
such that:
* There would exist a
Hi-
Here's a puzzle for you.
I want to write a test for the test suite to catch a lexical syntax
error, like the following non-existent named character. But I need to
somehow introduce another layer of evaluation. In the following, Guile
would tell me that my test script has an error and then
Mike Gran spk...@yahoo.com writes:
Hi-
Here's a puzzle for you.
I want to write a test for the test suite to catch a lexical syntax
error, like the following non-existent named character. But I need to
somehow introduce another layer of evaluation. In the following, Guile
would tell me
On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 16:53 +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
Mike Gran spk...@yahoo.com writes:
(with-test-prefix basic char handling
(pass-if-exception non-existent named character
exception:read-error
#\foobar))
You have a syntax error in your source
Hello,
Julian Graham jool...@gmail.com writes:
Hey, if we're open to extending the module system, then sure -- that
would certainly make for a cleaner, more efficient implementation.
That's got my vote.
Cool! ;-)
The trick is to extend it in a backward-compatible way as much as
possible.
Hi Mike,
Mike Gran spk...@yahoo.com writes:
commit 228caa60c037917afa448f6daa85df90c3f18848
Author: Michael Gran spk...@yahoo.com
Date: Wed Apr 22 08:31:12 2009 -0700
Revert Keep test dying when testing syntax errors
This reverts commit
Cool! ;-)
The trick is to extend it in a backward-compatible way as much as
possible. But now that we have hygiene and `use-syntax' has been
sort-of phased out (Andy?), that should be doable.
Perhaps we could create a branch so that you could experiment things?
*Urk* You didn't mean
On Wed 22 Apr 2009 17:53, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Julian Graham jool...@gmail.com writes:
Hey, if we're open to extending the module system, then sure -- that
would certainly make for a cleaner, more efficient implementation.
That's got my vote.
Mine too :)
The trick is to
Hello Andy,
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
On Wed 22 Apr 2009 09:55, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
The main differences between these two module systems are module
versioning, and phase separation. Fortunately, R6RS' system is a
superset of Guile's, so we could extend the
Hi Julian!
On Wed 22 Apr 2009 20:32, Julian Graham jool...@gmail.com writes:
I have to confess, I'm totally at a loss as to how we're going to make
versioning work with the autoload system.
In particular, I see some difficulty in terms of determining whether
to fully load and evaluate a
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
On Wed 22 Apr 2009 17:53, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Perhaps we could create a branch so that you could experiment things?
What would it have? Module versions?
Yes, to start with.
We should probably take advantage
of the occasion to separate
Hello!
Mike Gran spk...@yahoo.com writes:
On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 23:37 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
You seem to imply that `scm_getc ()' will now return a Unicode
codepoint, is that right? What about `scm_c_{read,write} ()', and
`scm_{get,put}s ()'?
I vacillate on this, but, I think
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
But given that the non-normative Appendix F states:
[...]
In particular, it is recommended that new versions of libraries
that are conservative extensions of old ones differ only in the
version, not in the name. Correspondingly, it is
Besides that, I don't think that phasing has any practical implication,
given the loopholes in the spec -- the set of bindings that a module
needs can be determined for *all* phases. That is to say, there is one
set of bindings that satisfies the needs of the spec for all phases of
evaluation
Hi,
Andreas Rottmann a.rottm...@gmx.at writes:
Use this instead of #\foobar in the source text:
(with-input-from-string #\\foobar read)
This way, your source has legal syntax.
Yes, there are other examples of this in `readers.test'.
Thanks,
Ludo'.
Hi Andy,
Guile should probably only support one live version of a module. So
Guile's internal module namespace stays the same. Versions are only
important when loading files from disk. I propose that we do it like
this:
Actually, I'd like to disagree here -- maybe I've been writing too
much
On Wed 22 Apr 2009 22:22, Julian Graham jool...@gmail.com writes:
Hi Andy,
Guile should probably only support one live version of a module. So
Guile's internal module namespace stays the same. Versions are only
important when loading files from disk. I propose that we do it like
this:
17 matches
Mail list logo
