Re: hygiene and macro-introduced toplevel bindings

2011-03-09 Thread Hans Aberg
On 8 Mar 2011, at 23:37, Andy Wingo wrote: Everyone appears to want gensymmed names. OK! Let's consider this to be a bug, and that at some point in the future, Guile will start gensymming this names. I want a syntax that allows one to explicitly choose which macro-bound variables to

Re: reprise: scm_c_eval_string_from_file_line

2011-03-09 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Bruce Korb bk...@gnu.org writes: So, this should go under: #if GUILE_VERSION 20 // anything after 2.0, e.g. 2.0.1 ?? Rather use AC_CHECK_FUNC. Thanks, Ludo’.

Re: hygiene and macro-introduced toplevel bindings

2011-03-09 Thread Andy Wingo
On Wed 09 Mar 2011 10:33, Hans Aberg haber...@telia.com writes: I want a syntax that allows one to explicitly choose which macro-bound variables to export, but otherwise, they should never be visible outside the macro (i.e., be uninterned). When exported, they will just have the name

Re: reprise: scm_c_eval_string_from_file_line

2011-03-09 Thread Andy Wingo
Greets, On Wed 09 Mar 2011 11:07, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: Bruce Korb bk...@gnu.org writes: So, this should go under: #if GUILE_VERSION 20 // anything after 2.0, e.g. 2.0.1 ?? Rather use AC_CHECK_FUNC. You'd have to check for (ice-9 eval-string) as well, added at the

Re: [PATCH] Don't mix definitions and expressions in SRFI-9

2011-03-09 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi Andreas, Andreas Rottmann a.rottm...@gmx.at writes: l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: Hi, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes: On Sun 06 Mar 2011 23:26, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: Andreas Rottmann a.rottm...@gmx.at writes: The expansion of `define-inlinable'

Re: Not fixing ‘letrec*’

2011-03-09 Thread Andy Wingo
On Sun 06 Mar 2011 23:27, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: I’ve pushed a variant of this patch. Sorry for the delay in responding. There was actually a more general fix. I pushed the following on top of your patch: commit df1297956211b7353155c9b54d7e9c22d05ce493 Author: Andy Wingo

Re: Proposal: deprecate low-level numeric predicates

2011-03-09 Thread Andy Wingo
On Tue 01 Mar 2011 20:20, Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org writes: Daniel Llorens d...@bluewin.ch writes: I tried to look into SCM_VALIDATE_REAL per the comment, I didn't get far. Yes, SCM_VALIDATE_REAL (defined in validate.h) requires that the tested value be an inexact real, i.e.

Re: FFI on OS X?

2011-03-09 Thread Andy Wingo
On Thu 03 Mar 2011 18:50, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: Do Fedora co. move ‘.so’ to dev packages too? Yep. Andy -- http://wingolog.org/

Re: Handling of the actively-maintained branches (master, stable-2.0)

2011-03-09 Thread Andy Wingo
On Thu 03 Mar 2011 14:16, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: Andreas Rottmann a.rottm...@gmx.at writes: I wonder how this generally should be handled -- I think the most appropriate way would be to commit any changes that can go into the stable release into stable-2.0 (only), and then,

Strategy for supporting GOOPS based numeric types

2011-03-09 Thread Mark H Weaver
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes: SCM_NUMBERP, SCM_NUMP, and SCM_INEXACTP ought to be deprecated, and replaced with internal versions. OK, but in master only please. Yes, of course, makes sense :) They check only for representations supported by the core implementation, and do not