Hello Stefan,
stefan stefan.ta...@spray.se writes:
I have started to code in some record recognition into the match construct
Excellent! :-)
Are you hacking Wright’s match as currently in Guile or Alex Shinn’s
rewrite from http://synthcode.com/scheme/?
I need first to make sure that I grok
Hi,
Thien-Thi Nguyen t...@gnuvola.org writes:
Another idea is to conceptually separate filename to be directory
and basename and have file ports maintain the directory portion as a
file descriptor (or equivalent) internally, exposed through some kind of
opaque handle.
I think open file
Hi,
[Keeping the list CC’d.]
Stefan stefan.ta...@spray.se writes:
Question? should we make it lean and just allow sfri-9 or perhaps
allow for both styles of records?
Actually, record matching in Wright’s match assumes users follow a
simple naming convention for the type predicate (only for
On Apr 18, 2010, at 07:41, Andy Wingo wrote:
Specifically, we should make it so that there is nothing you would want
to go to a core file for. Compiling Scheme code to native code should
never produce code that segfaults at runtime. All errors would still be
handled by the catch/throw
() l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
() Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:49:05 +0200
I think open file ports shouldn’t grant any authority beyond
access to the open file. Just like an open file descriptor
doesn’t convey any authority beyond access to the underlying
file (if we omit ‘..’ lookups on a
Volker Grabsch v...@notjusthosting.com schrieb:
Or, what about changing the generated code? Why does the generator
have to determine a number to be written into the generated code?
Instead, the generated scmconfig.h could contain code like this:
#include uniconv.h
...
Hello!
Here’s a code coverage report for Guile’s Scheme code:
http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/software/guile/guile.lcov/
So here’s the idea: pick the red box of your choice and make it so that
next time it’ll be bright green. :-)
The report was generated using LCOV on data produced using
Hi,
Thien-Thi Nguyen t...@gnuvola.org writes:
That is, if a file port supports ‘file-port-directory’, then how
to use/restrict the resulting object is left up to higher layers,
where it belongs.
I would put it the other way round: if an application wants to implement
‘file-port-directory’,
