, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue 29 Mar 2011 14:47, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
(define-peg-matcher and cg-and)
That's doable. But if we're going to choose what to do entirely based
on the first element of the list, then we could also just not define
peg-sexp-compile
Hello,
Your ideas sound neat, but there are a few things I am not familiar with.
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Diogo F. S. Ramos diogo...@gmail.com wrote:
What do you want to do in this area? There is important work to do with
introspection, but we would need to see your ideas and your
Hello,
Thanks for the advice!
I am in America (in the Eastern Time Zone, to be precise). I'm a
relatively new committer, which is why I haven't been advertising for
people to mentor, but I would be happy to help with anything I could.
Noah
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Phil
H Weaver m...@netris.org wrote:
Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
There is one _very_ serious problem with using GCC to compile Scheme, or
at least there was the last time I researched this issue: tail calls.
I might be wrong about this, but I thought that GCC supported multiple
Hello,
1. I think we shouldn’t augment the C API unless strictly necessary,
because the idea is to write Scheme, not C, and because of the
maintenance cost.
Why would we not want to augment the C API?
It seems like a natural complement to augmenting the Scheme API, since
Guile is a
Hello,
Regarding GCC, I have spoken to GCC folk, and they are not averse to
making GCC into a more modular thing. There are obvious licensing
concerns, but these are surmountable: Guile and GCC could work together
somehow. The problem, as I understood it last year, was that GCC
doesn't
Hello,
I would be happy to mentor for SoC! I think it's a great program. I
can also promise that I'll have a lot more time to work on Guile stuff
over the summer than I do now, which should be perfect for SoC. :-)
My only questions are about logistics. Do I have to do any paperwork
or something
Hello Guile and Clisp developers,
I'm writing to talk about vague big-picture ideas, but please bear
with me for a minute, because I think this could be useful.
I noticed in the recent GNU Summer of Code applications (I'm a mentor
for Guile) that CLisp wants to become embeddable, and embed into
I think that mechanism is all that Guile uses at present. However, it
should be general enough to resolve all situations where variables of
the same name refer to different entities, assuming you set up the
environments correctly.
Are you planning on implementing a theorem prover for Guile? That
Hello,
I think we should first compare the virtual machines.
If no obvious impossibility is observed, then perhaps modifying the
compiler of clisp to generate guile VM code would be an easy path to
obtain a CL implementation running on guile VM. (This would disable the
interpreter in
The fact that we represent different variables as gensyms is an
implementation detail, and unimportant. (In fact, I might like to
change that detail at some point to get better error messages, but
it's not high on my to-do list.)
What are you referring to here?
It's just part of my mental
Hello all,
I just pushed some changes to the wip-peg branch. They eliminate the
last remaining circularity in the module imports and then add
everything to the Makefile. It passes all tests on my machine.
This is my first time pushing something, so I hope I did it correctly.
If the patches
These are all good points. Integrating different languages is hard.
Quite frankly, I am not yet sure that sharing a VM would be a good
idea for us, but as we talk more about it it is seeming more and more
reasonable. I sent my original message because I saw that CLisp was
becoming an embeddable
Hello all,
I'm afraid this email is coming much later in the planning process
than it should, and quite possibly we won't be able to do any of this
for SoC, and that's fine with me. But I was thinking about what we
could do that would be a killer feature for Guile's CPAN - something
that isn't
Hello,
Let me clarify a bit about Lightning and the stuff I've been doing:
Lightning is a very low-level assembler framework. It is embeddable,
and Guile could certainly target it, but targeting Lightning would be
just a speed enhancement - it wouldn't make us more compatible with
anything else.
I don't know about the packaging, but I think the .go files depend on
the endianness of the machine but nothing else. So you should be able
to move them between different little-endian or big-endian machines
(unless I'm wrong). But it seems much safer to me to just compile
things. You shouldn't
Well, IIRC, it's not a feature that dorodango does not have ;-):
dordango's package container format (referred to as a bundle) can
contain multiple packages. So it is possible to pack all your
dependencies in a single ZIP, and install them in one go using that
bundle. There's a bit of text
I just looked at the code. It's really cool! This looks like a way to
write modules that use C and Scheme together in such a way that the
code is all in one place. I think it could be much easier to read code
written this way than code in separate C and Scheme files.
What do other people think?
Hello,
I do not know how you are reading the Guile Reference
Manual, but the printed version is about 809 pages long. At
present, the indices run from page 755 to 809, so the
revision that is suggested, above, would not be small.
What would be of some help to get this project started is a
Is anyone interested in implementing a path library?
Andy
I might be able to work on it. I haven't done much for Guile lately,
but I expect to have a lot more free time once my semester ends on May
7th.
However, I don't know much about how Windows paths work. Are there any
special
Yep! Check that racket web page I linked to. You don't have to
implement all of it, but it should be possible to implement, given the
path abstraction.
Okay, I've read it. It doesn't seem very complicated. Should we strive
for API compatibility? I don't see any programs needing it right now,
Hello all,
I have another issue to raise. I think this is actually parallel to
some of the stuff in the (web) module, as you will see.
I've always thought it was ridiculous and hackish that I had to escape
spaces in path strings. For instance, I have a folder called Getting
a Job on my desktop,
That makes sense.
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
Hello,
If you call `map' or `for-each' with more than one list, our versions of
these operators will detect if the lists are of unequal length, and
throw an error in that case.
However, SRFI-1 has long
Cool!
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Just wanted to chime in and tell you a little about what I'm doing with the
guile-unify package.
First off, this is a tool to do backtracking effectively e.g. tree searches
and make heavy use
.
Noah
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Ludovic Courtès l...@gnu.org wrote:
Hi Noah,
Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
The reason this strangeness enters is that path strings are actually
lists (or vectors) encoded as strings. Conceptually, the path
~/Desktop/Getting\ a\ Job
Hello,
Guile's Summer of Code project this summer was an implementation of
Emacs Lisp. I am curious - what is happening with that? Is it
progressing?
I follow the list, but haven't heard anything since the decision on
which project we wanted.
Noah
Hello,
I agree that this is much shorter, but I'm worried about defining the
short syntax in a way that forces you to choose between syntax-rules
and syntax-case. What I mean is that you could just as easily have
(define-syntax (foo bar)
...)
expand to
(define-syntax foo
(syntax-rules ()
Except, it doesn't. My version doesn't insert either syntax-case or
syntax-rules; it just inserts the lambda and lets you do whatever.
Oh, I must have been temporarily insane. My apologies. :-)
Your idea makes a lot of sense.
Noah
Hello all,
It's been a while, but I just got the wip-peg branch from the main
repository and tried to build it. After doing make clean make, I
get this error:
Undefined symbols:
_rpl_open, referenced from:
_scm_open_file in libguile_2.0_la-fports.o
_scm_load_objcode in
is a
bit lossy :)
Cheers,
Andy
On Tue 06 Sep 2011 04:25, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
I have fixed this. There is currently a branch on Savannah called
wip-peg-fixed which has all of the peg changes rebased on top of
stable-2.0. It builds fine on my machine and runs
This is excellent! Congratulations!
An interesting note from my current project: a partial evaluator means
you don't have to use macros to define the PEG parser (while keeping
exactly the same efficiency as now): instead of having (define-peg
pattern) be a macro that analyzes pattern and outputs
Hello all,
It looks to me like the last thing needed before the peg branch can be
used is to change some of the S-expression representations of the
components. Here are the five that I think need changing, taken from
the manual, with suggested replacements.
-- PEG Pattern: zero or more a
Hello,
The syntactic changes you propose all make sense to me, FWIW.
Great! Then I will push an implementation soon unless someone else objects.
A more general question about PEG: how do you bind a variable to the
result of a pattern? For instance, if you want the result of (* a) to
be
.
I hadn't really looked at this part of the module, but it looks to me
now like the names aren't descriptive enough. Maybe we should change
them before putting this in a release.
Noah
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Ludovic Courtès l...@gnu.org wrote:
Hi!
Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com
for people to learn and forwards-compatible with
whatever our future plans for parsing are. I will try to send an email
soon with some thoughts on that.
Noah
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Can you give an example of what ‘peg-parse’ and ‘peg:tree
Hello all,
I was just going through updating the PEG documentation when I
encountered a very weird situation, and I don't know how to solve it.
As you probably know, the PEG system can take an s-expression
representation of a PEG grammar (a peg s-exp) and turn it into a
function that can parse
Hello,
It is complicated though. The other option is to write a PEG
interpreter or compiler in Scheme. An interpreter would interpret the
s-expressions directly, or some simplified form of them. A compiler
would pre-process the s-expressions to produce a procedure, built from
closures.
Hello,
If the s-expression is a compile-time constant, and if the PEG compiler
is written in purely-functional style and confined within a single
top-level form, then peval should be able to produce the parser
procedure at compile-time. Otherwise, it would be produced at run-time.
This is
For instance, what about doing
(compile (peg-sexp-compile some-s-expression) #:from scheme-syntax
#:to value)
? That seems like a nice API to me.
You could do the same with #:from 'scheme, no?
I don't think so, because I think #:from 'scheme expects an
S-expression, but peg-sexp-compile
Oh, excellent! I had assumed it did not. I will update the PEG documentation.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
On Wed 21 Sep 2011 20:44, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
I think #:from 'scheme expects an S-expression, but peg-sexp-compile
returns
Hello all,
As the PEG module nears some reasonable level of completion, we should
figure out what all of the functions need to be named so everyone can
reasonably understand them.
At first I thought the names should be consistent wtih the LALR and
regexp modules, so all of the parsing modules
Hello,
define-peg-sexp - define a nonterminal from an s-expression
define-peg-string - define a set of nonterminals from a string
To me this sounds like you are defining an sexp or a string, which
doesn't make much sense. I don't think that we need to preserve
symmetry here, because the
Hello all,
It looks to me like the PEG project is wrapping up. We're talking
about what to name things now, which means the library is likely
pretty close to inclusion in Guile. After this I will want another
Guile project to work on. My original intention was to work on a JIT
compiler for Guile,
Hello,
- You write a function that assumes its arguments are of a certain
type. You'd like to be sure this is true, so your program won't throw
exceptions in the middle.
That would be cool. However, I suspect that for best results you’d want
procedures to have type annotations, as in
Hello,
(Though I think that the term ‘constant’, as used by GCC, is confusing.
I don’t have a better name to propose, though.)
How about 'algebraic'? As in functions in basic algebra. (I know it
has a different meaning, though.)
Or alternatively, something referencing the lambda calculus,
Hello,
I think it can be done effectively, but I'm not quite sure what you
mean by dynamic module composition. Do you mean that this might
prevent you from making modules that use arbitrary other modules? Or
that it might not work if you loaded modules at runtime from the REPL?
I was
I believe debian maintainers are responsible for packaging Guile for
Debian. You should contact whoever maintains the Guile package there.
I don't know anything about cygwin.
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 6:38 AM, roman ro...@web.de wrote:
Hello,
the last version of guile available for cygwin and
Hello,
I hate to make more work for people, but I think the PEG module is
almost ready for merging, and could probably be merged if we resolved
this names issue. Any other thoughts?
Noah
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
define-peg-sexp
Hello all,
Could anyone tell me the status of the ELisp implementation since July
21st (the last update)?
I'm especially interested now because of a thread on emacs-devel -
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2011-09/msg00753.html.
People were talking about adding multithreading to
happening or where to look. If you set up a
branch, I for one would love to check it out and perhaps contribute
some patches. Do you need permission from the Emacs maintainers to do
that, or anything else?
Noah
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 9:37 AM, joa...@verona.se wrote:
Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com
Hello again,
I've been working on the compiler issue and I've had to start looking
at processing Tree-IL. As a result, I realized that the Tree-IL
documentation is a bit out-of-date. I would like to fix it, but there
are some things I don't understand.
- It looks like every Tree-IL type has a
Hello,
Record-case parses slots by name, not by position.
Match destructures by position, not by name.
Oh, interesting.
- On a related note, why do most of the Tree-IL record type not appear
in the define-type statement in tree-il.scm line 133, and is that
connected with the
Then I have a new goal: understand that. :-)
The deal is that macroexpansion produces tree-il. The usual
macroexpander is provided by psyntax. But before psyntax is loaded,
when the first bits of Scheme are seen, there is a boot expander written
in C that produces tree-il, with support for
Hello,
I am certainly not an authoritative source, but it's been a while, so
here is what I know. As far as I can tell, these questions haven't
been decided yet. All we know is that we want a guildhall.
However, having your packages in it would be great, so please do
package them up and
I guess in general I'd prefer something like Racket's #!lang directives,
though I'm not opposed to this approach. Dunno!
How about using language directives when available, and trying to
guess the language when not?
And about the directives, what should they be? ',language' is what we
used to
Hello Guile developers,
Despite the long gap since my last email, I have in fact been working
on the compiler project. This email has two purposes: first, to make
sure that I have a basically reasonable design before I work more, and
second, to ask a logistical question.
First of all, I very
Cool. As a quick reaction, I have some doubts about this project. But,
I guess a WIP branch would be a good thing to have, and it would make
the discussion more concrete.
Probably so. But if you have time, what are your doubts? I would much
rather talk about problems now than after I've
Hello,
I haven't really been contributing to this thread, so please take my
opinion with a grain of salt. But it does appear to me that we should
support capturing a lexical environment, as Mark and David describe.
So I took a look at ice-9/eval.scm to see how difficult it would be to
implement.
Perhaps this is obvious to everyone else, but it just occurred to me
that (capture-local-environment) is just
(call-with-current-continuation), but running in the environment of
the evaluator instead of the program being evaluated. It's as though
the evaluator was going to look in a tree for more
Hello,
Indeed, only the macro expander has enough information to generate an
optimal list of reachable lexicals, i.e. lexical variables that are
accessible using normal symbols (as opposed to syntax objects) [more
on this below].
Are you certain that you want to restrict the set of
Hello,
If I understand correctly, Mark wants to restrict the set of variables
you can access to those you could access through normal Scheme code.
This is an issue because psyntax happens to provide a way to access
more variables than standard Scheme. If this is the case, I think we
should
Hello,
Sorry it's been so long since my last reply. I've been somewhat busy
around the holidays, but I hope to work more soon.
Also, what about “vset” or just “set” instead of “value-set”?
Yes, probably a good idea.
+ (set! (a-verify-exps ret)
+ (map (lambda
Hello,
Then it turned out that the string functions would now clear the
high order bit on strings, so they are no longer byte arrays and
there is no replacement but to roll my own. I stopped supporting
byte arrays. A noticable nuisance.
This is just a side note to the main discussion, but
Let me see if I understand what you mean. I think you're talking about
an expression like this:
(cons (call/cc store-this-continuation) (call/cc store-this-continuation))
and you want a way to distinguish the first and the second call/cc, by
guaranteeing the order they are hit. This will let
Hello all,
I must admit that I do not know much about why R5RS says that literals
are constant, but I think there is a misunderstanding.
Bruce does not want `define' to always copy its result. I think what
he wants is for literals embedded in source code to be mutable. This
would, of course,
Hello,
I'm going to try to combine the two parallel compiler threads into
one, by replying to two messages at once. I hope this makes things
simpler rather than more confusing. :-)
Message 1:
Here is my calculus regarding this work, FWIW: it is low risk, and low
cost, since it doesn't
Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 8:16 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Hi,
I was just wondering about the ability for using multiple continuations
in contexts that don't guarantee an order of execution. Functions like
map, list
Hello,
Interesting. `verify' seems to be a form of contracts:
http://ftp.ccs.northeastern.edu/scheme/pubs/icfp2002-ff.pdf
Does `verify' have runtime semantics? Under what situations, if any,
would the compiler insert runtime checks?
It has no runtime semantics right now. I considered
...@pobox.com wrote:
On Wed 04 Jan 2012 19:12, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
On Mon 03 Oct 2011 20:21, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
I hate to make more work for people, but I think the PEG module is
almost ready for merging, and could probably be merged if we resolved
this names
Hello,
As long as we're pinging people for 2.0.5, I don't think this patch
ever got pushed. :-)
I can't build master right now. This is partly my fault for doing so
little sysadmin work that I still have libgc 7.1, but I still think
this one should really, really be in 2.0.5 if the GC changes
I've run into trouble because of my problems building master. I'll
have to work around that, so it won't happen tonight.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for the delay.
I haven't thought about the PEG stuff in a long time, but looking
back, I'm
, because the macro could just detect whether it
got a string or an s-expression and do the right thing. I can fix that
if other people think it should be done.
Noah
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com wrote:
I've run into trouble because of my problems building master
Hello,
If we can already foresee the need to deprecate an interface, wouldn't
it be better not to add it in the first place?
I don't see the need to deprecate them now, not more than any other
identifier that we export.
I think this may be the key to this argument. There are two separate
Hello,
I just checked out the latest master. I attempted to build it, but got
stuck at this point:
GENguile-procedures.texi
/bin/sh: line 1: 75746 Broken pipe cat alist.doc
arbiters.doc array-handle.doc array-map.doc arrays.doc async.doc
backtrace.doc boolean.doc bitvectors.doc
, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
I just checked out the latest master. I attempted to build it, but got
stuck at this point:
Is it http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guile/2011-12/msg00058.html
?
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
Hello,
/* Read expressions from that port; ignore the values. */
for (;;) {
SCM form = scm_read(port);
if (SCM_EOF_OBJECT_P(form))
break;
ans = scm_primitive_eval_x(form);
}
return ans;
}
}
Every
be looking for?
Thanks,
Noah
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 4:01 AM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
On Wed 01 Feb 2012 03:12, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
In the failing call,
the SCM 'symbols' is 0x10101cff0, but the failing set is at 0x304,
which has not been allocated.
0x304
, Feb 2, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com wrote:
Got it! And unfortunately, it's a GC error. Here's what happens:
symbols is an SCM object defined in symbols.c. It points to an
scm_cell_t which has two elements: a type tag, and a pointer to an
scm_weak_set_t. That scm_cell_t
Oh, and the same will happen with GC_get_suspend_signal, which we
define at scmsigs.c:155.
Other than that, though, the new gc resolves the problem I had. I am
willing to chalk this up to a GC bug and not worry about it more.
Noah
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav
Hello,
Thanks for emailing! I suppose I am the one to talk to, since I was
the last one to work on it.
I didn't make the PEG parsing syntax, but I would guess the reason
there isn't a string syntax for ignore is that there's no conventional
way to write it, but there is for the other PEG
Hello,
I've actually found no PEG library that has a string syntax for the
equivalent of ignore. I'm guessing most people are satisfied with just
specifying another nonterminal and matching that one. Probably because it is
seen as less ugly than extending on the formal definition of PEG but I
Hello,
I've been working on a patch to add a new sort of optimization to
peval, and I think it's almost ready. It's based on some of the ideas
in Environment Analysis of Higher-Order Languages.
The goal is to recognize when two quantities are equal even when we
don't know what they are. My
Hello,
Note, we don't need to add extra identities to operands: they already
have their gensyms. So to get the effect of this patch, you could add a
clause to fold-constants:
((primcall src 'eq? (lexical _ _ x) (lexical _ _ y))
(if (eq? x y)
(make-const src #t)
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
On Thu 16 Feb 2012 14:18, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
(let ((x (random)))
(eq? x x))
(let* ((x (random))
(y (list x))
(z (car y))
(eq? x z))
This one should reduce to the same
it.
I will send a separate email about the CPS stuff.
Noah
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
Hi Noah,
On Fri 17 Feb 2012 03:22, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
(let* ((x (random))
(y (list x))
(z (car y))
(eq? x z))
To make
Hello everyone,
There was some discussion in the Identities in Peval thread about
using a CPS-like intermediate representation in Guile.
I think that our goal with our intermediate representation should be
to make things convenient for us - we shouldn't try to match any
particular model unless
Hello,
My vote would be for self-contained: it can be copied directly into a
file or REPL and executed, and IMO reduces confusion. I already try to
do this when posting any examples on paste.lisp.org or in a gist.
When you say self-contained, do you mean that if the example uses a
procedure
What about having two bits of syntax, current-filename and
current-file-path? Or better yet, current-filename and
current-file-directory, with the guarantee that (string-append
(current-file-directory) path-separator (current-filename)) points to
the file when it was compiled?
It is more
Done. I added two tests, for good measure :-).
Noah
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 4:53 AM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sat 18 Feb 2012 17:20, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
Here is another patch that fixes the first of my examples. (let* ((x
(random)) (y x)) (eq? x y)) now
If I understand correctly, you only need to call the continuation
once. Is that right?
In that case, I think you could use either catch and throw or prompts.
(And catch and throw are implemented with prompts, so really, you can
just choose how you want to use prompts.)
Noah
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012
))
#f music))
(lambda (key music) music)))
Does that work?
Noah
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 7:42 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 7:00 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Hi,
I am just
Hello,
IIRC, the stack copying in Guile's continuation implementation is
inevitable. Though it's inefficient, the consideration is to cooperate with
other languages such as C.
It's inevitable in the general case, where the continuation might
return multiple times.
However, in this situation,
Hello,
Sure, but things like gensym and make-prompt-tag (and (list '()) for
creating an eq?-unique object) are artificial hygiene coming at a cost
in symbol table and symbol generation time rather than lexical
hygiene. They need _extra_ work, whereas the
call-with-current-continuation
This is great! Thanks for improving this so much.
Noah
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org wrote:
I wrote:
Here's a significantly refactored version of my 'tree-il-scheme'
improvements.
and here are the actual patches, with the psyntax-pp.scm portions
removed.
I do not know if that idea is still valid. However, here are two more
to add to that list:
- Integration with Emacs. Guile has a very-nearly-complete
implementation of Elisp. We'd like to get it to the point that it can
actually run Emacs, and see if we can implement GNU's editor better
than the
Hello,
The “dynwind stack” actually (I misread it the first time.)
Yes, it did have this name before. (More often, the wind list.) But
since dynwind is overloaded so much (dynamic-wind operator, dynwind,
scm_dynwind_*), and the dynamic stack can have other things on it like
prompts, I
When building the latest git master, I get this error:
GUILEC language/tree-il/compile-glil.go
Assertion failed: (table-n_items size), function rob_from_rich,
file weak-table.c, line 252.
Has weak-table.c changed recently?
Noah
Hello,
Are you sure this is correct? What if someone calls the module-set!
function on that module between the definition and use of whatever
function you're compiling?
I agree very strongly that we need to be able to do this sort of
optimization, but I think we might need some sort of caching
Hello,
I don't think I've changed the correctness wrt `module-set!' and the
like -- the current, private-refs-only optimization already exhibits the
problem you describe:
| scheme@(guile-user) (define old-car car)
| scheme@(guile-user) (module-set! (current-module)
I think (current-module)
This problem went away for me when I made distclean and built the most
recent master. I don't know why that fixed it.
2012/3/9 Ludovic Courtès l...@gnu.org:
Hi Noah!
Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com skribis:
When building the latest git master, I get this error:
GUILEC language/tree
101 - 200 of 359 matches
Mail list logo
