I'm trying to port syntax-parse to master. And get into the following
trubble
(syntax-case x (integrate) ((integrate a b) ...))
fails, but
(syntax-case x (integrate) ((_ a b) ...))
does not fail
looking at the code for syntax-case I would expect that the datum integrate
is
match against and
and Cheers!
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue 08 May 2012 21:16, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
writes:
I have three stacks
1. a control stack that stores undo information scheme hooks aka
dynamic-wind and stack references
Thx,
I have a few things I would like to do first but maybe after this weekend I
will
make the linkage!
/Stefan
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue 08 May 2012 17:46, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
writes:
I would like to add a link
hi,
I'm trying to use this as a way to defined different versions of the code
depending on the
guile-version. So here it is,
(eval-when (compile load eval)
(define (ver)
(let ((v (version)))
(cond
((string-match ^2.0 v)
'v2.0)
((string-match ^2.1 v)
I have found the bug, It was because of the bug fixed in
master got a bug in my code visible!
/Stefan
-- Forwarded message --
From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, May 16, 2012 at 8:57 PM
Subject: bug in syntax-case in master
To: guile-devel guile-devel
-version!
/Stefan
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
On Wed 16 May 2012 23:32, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
writes:
(define-syntax guile-stuff
(lambda (x)
(syntax-case x ()
(_
(let ((q (ver)))
(cond
PM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
On Thu 17 May 2012 14:47, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
writes:
I tried cond-expand, just to see if it worked and no
the export clause does not fall through and the symbols are not exported.
I can fix this as you say by using
Stefan
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
On Mon 14 May 2012 21:13, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
writes:
(begin
(define parser-a code-a ...)
(define-syntax a spec-a))
(begin
(define parser-b code-b ...)
(define-syntax b
2012 21:13, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
writes:
(begin
(define parser-a code-a ...)
(define-syntax a spec-a))
(begin
(define parser-b code-b ...)
(define-syntax b spec-b))
In racket they manage to evaluate the define-syntax forms before the
define
,
Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com skribis:
I have a few things I would like to do first but maybe after this
weekend I
will
make the linkage!
Please add it to gnu-guile-projects.html (under template/ first, as Andy
mentioned), and using the same format as other entries
Jolly nice, this is perfect!
Den 21 maj 2012 10:59 skrev Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com:
On Sat 19 May 2012 00:05, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
writes:
(define (f x) (c))
(define-syntax c (lambda (x) (pk 'c) #t))
These expressions are expanded in order, not together
Ok, those issues are now fixed!
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Ludovic Courtès l...@gnu.org wrote:
Hi!
Thanks! There are a few typos:
guile - Guile
racket - Racket
an hygienic - a hygienic
recomending - recommending
Also, could you move it above, to keep the list alphabetically
, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
writes:
I post here a directory of patches and code that can be used to enhance
guile to interact nicely
with logic programming code written in C. I can reach very good
performance using this tool
please have a look and comment on it.
Would you
I got an idea,
why not design a portable assembler that have a unifying simple core and try
to model a VM on that e.g. simple things will be naitive and complex
instructions
can be dispatched via a named goto.
The solution would fix a few registers like the bp and then have enough
instructions
Hi all,
I feel that the basic technology is now in place when it comes to guile-log.
It's future proof code base meaning that other technologies has to be in
place before tweaking it further. I know that it can handle multiple threads
and be speedy when native compilation becomes a reality. So I
Great!
So If you code the new VM interpreter you get 2x improvement
If you generate code and compile with no optimization about another 3x
If you are able to generate code that compiles with optimisation bsically
using a register
you will get ?
Using a register as a storage on my machine yields
Hi,
On linux, x86-64 I can now write,
(use-modules (native aschm))
(define b (asm
(inst mov rbx 10) ;rbx = 1000,000,000
loop:
(inst cmp rbx 0)
(inst jmp #:eq out:)
(inst dec rbx)
(inst jmp loop:)
out:
Maybe this could be a first stub for a table structure that is uses both an
array and a hash-table. I do think that implementing this might need fine
tuning in order
to have good defaults and so on. So in that sense one probably need to
check out reference
implementations. But this is for
Why not specify the logic in scheme and output it either to C or Assembler
:-)
/Stefan
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.comwrote:
Hello,
But the used sbcl derivative although not gnu is either in the public
domain
or bsd so we should be able to publish
Israelsson Tampe
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:
Why not specify the logic in scheme and output it either to C or
Assembler
:-)
That sounds very cool, and would be very cool, I thought first, but
then I realized that you wouldn't be able to bootstrap guile anymore
:-/
- Daniel
the possibility to compile to native
code by some kind of just in time mechanism. Cool!
I will try to start investigating this approach.
/Stefan
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Daniel Krueger keen...@googlemail.comwrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
stefan.ita
:28 PM, Ludovic Courtès l...@gnu.org wrote:
Hi Stefan,
Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com skribis:
Hygiene is harder to maintain. e.g. I kept on hitting this kind of code
snippets
#'(let ((x v))
#,(f rest #'x))
The problem with this code is hygiene, I need
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
On Mon 02 Jul 2012 09:53, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
writes:
Anyway I can now compile simple functions to native sequences of machine
code but with some
tools around it so let me explain the setup
wrote I needed to do
(with-syntax ((x (datum-syntax stx (gensym x #`(let ((x 2)) #,(f
#'x))
Hope that this makes things clear!
/Stefan
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Ludovic Courtès l...@gnu.org wrote:
Hey!
Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com skribis:
Stefan
:47 AM, Marijn hk...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Stefan,
On 03-07-12 23:52, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
You do not need gensyms if you try to mimic or implement my
suggested #. . On the other hand when if you do this
(define (f stx) #`(let ((x 1
Hi,
Branching now works and a big enough subset of the VM is translatable for
some interesting
benchmarks to be done.
So by skipping the goto structure a the win is maybe 3-4x for simple
numerical loops. I do expect
these loop ta be another factor of 2 when the wip-rtl is translated in the
same
...@gnu.org wrote:
Hi!
Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com skribis:
| It’s true that it’s annoying that the wrong binding is silently used.
| Do you think it’s common enough to justify new syntax?
Yes this highlights a comon problem when implementing racket match
samth made a pointer to
http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-72/srfi-72.html
It does not look like guile racket etc. have implemented this yet.
Am I wrong?
This is precisely what I'm after!
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Ludovic Courtès l...@gnu.org wrote:
Hi,
Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu
Hi,
I have thought about what abstraction is needed to be supported by psyntax
in order to implement srfi-72.
Consider macro expansion of code #'C, ideally we would like to write the
expansion as E#'C with E an expansion operator. For two
expansion operators E,F we would expect to support this
Hi interesting thoughts Mark,
The below refere to to (very) simplistic vm compiler I'm working on right
now.
The current overhead found in function call's, function setup and
function return means that it's hard to factor in the lowest level
of optimizations. I view the call overhead so large
overhead
it's maybe a non issue but I think we should time current setup with a
version
where we grovel the callee information from the program datastructure.
/Stefan
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
On Fri 03 Aug 2012 13:54, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita
Hi,
I was thinking how to mix rtl-VM and native compilation with respect to
closure creation
currently in the code we layout the program as
((nfree :16 | flags:8 | ?:7 | tag:0), code, freevar1 )
Then at closure creation we just set first slot, the code to point to a
relative adress
stage we may leave the VM and perhaps enter into a Native only
mode. Then we can restructure.
/Stefan
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sun 05 Aug 2012 17:19, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
writes:
Probably it is best to have the first
Hi,
DO you think that this will do as an initial patch to wip-rtl in order to
introduce the possibility to
execute native code or JIT:ed code. We reserve the first two indexes in the
ip text area to fit
a pointer to native code to be executed.
There is changes to two parts of the code
1.
Hi!
I was looking at the code for bytevector-ref, vector-ref, struct-ref and
it's pretty
conclusive that there is a hugh overhead of implementing those. We are
talking of 30-40 instructions that has to be put into native code. Now most
of this code is working with registers so it's not that bad.
Hi,
Currently if we want to compile to native code in the rtl branch the call
instruction is very heave to inline
directly. I would like to, when the number of arguments is less then 20
arguments jump to global code segment
where all the nessesary heavy lifting is done. Else the whole call
Hi,
In wip-rtl vm-engine.c around line 1047 in opcode call/values tehre seams
to be
some strangeities with the use of the nargs variable in,
SCM_FRAME_SET_DYNAMIC_LINK (fp, old_fp);
SCM_FRAME_SET_RTL_MV_RETURN_ADDRESS (fp, ip + 2 + nargs);
SCM_FRAME_SET_RTL_RETURN_ADDRESS (fp, ip + 3 + nargs);
Hi,
I have now implemented most of the rtl oops and in the phase where i am
testing the ops so that all generate assembler .e.g. generate not run, I
will run them later.
I have a few problems usng the rtl codebase, namely I don't know how to
tell the
program where the rtl bytecode ends, I would
Typed Guile? Did I miss something? :-)
https://gitorious.org/typed-guile
It's a type system implemented using guile-log!
By the way, I do not think the overhead is that dramatic. I guess that
guile's equal would be any slower with this feature added. you typically
does a circularity check via
Hi all,
The rtl native environment is close to a usable state for linux x86-64.
Most instructions have been translated to assembler and it remains to debug
them
and write test cases which will take some time.
Consider the simple code,
(define (f n)
(let loop ((n n) (s 0))
(if (eq? n 0)
The cycle detection for a tree would probably look something like,
SCM scm_equal_cons(SCM x, SCM y, SCM slow, int move)
{
SCM res;
if(scm_is_pair? (x) scm_is_pair (y))
{
if(scm_is_eq (x, slow)) cycle_detection_hit();
if(move)
if(scm_is_pair? (SCM_CAR (slow)))
00:08 skrev Ludovic Courtès l...@gnu.org:
Hi,
Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com skribis:
The cycle detection for a tree would probably look something like,
Tortoise-and-hare would have to be applied to arbitrary data structures,
AIUI.
Ludo’.
I actually implemented an algorithm to handle infinite trees that we could
use if we like.
Enjoy!
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Ludovic Courtès l...@gnu.org wrote:
Hi,
Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com skribis:
The cycle detection for a tree would probably look
Hi,
I found that this optimization can lead to dangerous bugs.
If I put,
(define a #(1))
(define b #(1))
, load the file. Then
(eq? a b)
#t
Is this an optimization we need. I can figure out applications where you do
not want this behavior e.g. I wan't to make distinct objects
and add
Yes, I can agree om that.
But this should be very stated clearly and perhaps added to a pitfall's
section.
/Stefan
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Ian Price ianpric...@googlemail.com wrote:
Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com writes:
Is this an optimization we need. I can
Hi,
I was a bit surprised when I coded the native versions of rtl-sinstruction,
make-non-immediate I just
assumed that alignement meant 64bit on 64bit platforms. It doesen't in for
example,
(define const
(assemble-program
`((begin-program test-bind-rest)
(assert-nargs-ee/locals 0 2)
:
On 09/03/2012 09:55 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
To note here is that if we had
one bit to spare for every cons representation we could do use that bit
to mark conses as been touched and abort the ordinary equal if we find a
mark. For x86-64 we have one such bit available which is cool
Israelsson Tampe
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:
You are right! That will only work for one thread!
Remain to see how much the overhed there is to linearize the search and
use tourtoues - hare, should be much less overhead then using a map to
mark the objects though!
See http
Hi all,
I've been reworking my little type-checking library built on guile-log. It
now works
on some pretty recent guile-2.0 repo and a recent guile-log. It has
subtypes it has recursive types
allow for or and and not in the spec for the type. You can check it out at
Hi,
I'm right now trying to port compile-glil to compile-rtl and I would say
that what's hindering me is
what design choices to take?
1.
The main problem is that we do not have a stack pointer the same way as
before. Of cause we still need
to store temporary values and we will simply have to use
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.comwrote:
Hello,
I have been working on understanding RTL, and I wrote the following
tests. They're mostly to illustrate for myself how calling works in
RTL, but they also serve to test it. Any objections if I commit them
as
Hi Mikael and welcome back!
*But*, the proper implementation of syntax-toplevel? requires
modification of psyntax.scm and adding it to the (system syntax)
module. I didn't want to do this until I've had your comments, so the
present patch has its own syntax-object accessors (which breaks
Yes in that case this stands on it's own!
/Stefan
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Mikael Djurfeldt mik...@djurfeldt.comwrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:
Comments? Can I add syntax-toplevel? to psyntax.scm and (system
syntax
Hi,
OK, the last progress for the rtl compilation is make it work to something
as close as the current
RTL VM,
I have added a few variables that can control the kind of compilation
strategy we would like
to have as an output. I can for example now do
(define f ((c (lambda (x) (let loop ((s 0)
out more how to do this, if you
have any pointers or ideas, please help out.
Cheers
Stefan
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
After talking with Mark Weaver about his view on native code, I have been
pondering how to best model
this method to try vary C over the graph somewhat.
What do you think?
Happy Mathing!!
/Stefan
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to continue the discussion about native code.
Some facts are,
For example, consider
it a couple years ago for a JIT
project that we never fully implemented. I chose it over GNU Lightning
specifically because it did register allocation. It implements a full
assembler, not just calls, which could also be nice later.
Noah
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
(such
as missing labels or calls to guile procedures...)
Sjoerd
On 11/12/2012 10:50 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
Thanks for your mail Noah,
Yea libjit is quite interesting. But playing around with an assembler in
scheme I do not want to go back to
C or C++ land. The only problem is that we
Hi,
Yes this is pre-work and what i'm doing is an investigation trying out
things. bare that in mind :-)
For the assembler it can be really good to support one that comes with
guile so I do not find this
work as a research work but as a service work to propose components that
can be included in
Hi all,
If I've not miss - understood wingo's and Marks intention for native code,
there need to be a intermediate format
to output from tree-il that is different from the rtl bytecode. One of the
reason's for this is that one need a better format in
order to do register allocations well. What I
Hi Noha,
very clean code indeed, nice work, (mine rtl compiler is much more a bit of
a hack btw :-))
One thing to think about from the beginning is how to protect variables
from gc and at the same time
offer unreachable vars to be gc:d at an early state. In guile-2.0 we kept
using a stack for
Hi,
In terms of strategy, I think Guile’s focus should remain primarily on
Scheme variants, and ELisp. Other language front-ends are of course
welcome, but we must keep an eye on what the demand is.
What about common lisp is scheme a lisp or is CL a scheme :-)
Anyway to support CL I would
Hi, I just found a bug in rtl.scm, it's triggere by compiling larger rtl
codes.
In rtl.scm, we have the function
(define (link-text-object asm)
(let ((buf (make-u32vector (asm-pos asm
(let lp ((pos 0) (prev (reverse (asm-prev asm
(if (null? prev)
(let ((byte-size (*
to write rtl
assembler refering to toplevels in a nice way
/Stefan
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.comwrote:
Hello,
I have been working on understanding RTL, and I
for accessing variables. I imagine he was thinking of something like
this too, so the best thing would be to get that patch merged into the
regular wip-rtl branch.
Noah
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Noah,
I have a fix to rtl.scm
that fluid is
changed by with-fluids.
But that seems tricky to implement. I haven't looked at how Stefan did it,
but I'm impressed.
Noah
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Ludovic Courtès l...@gnu.org wrote:
Hi Stefan,
Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com skribis:
(define f (lambda
Hi,
To note is that in order to implement common lisp one need to bypass tree-il
and generate directly to glil, the reason is that tagbody is poorly
represented
by tree-il. If we intend to be multilingual it would be nice to be able to
effectively
represent those ideoms. Any thoughts on it?
compile the
module directly to native code this will be a non issue and I completely
agree with your approach.
Cheers!
Stefan
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
On Thu 09 Aug 2012 20:59, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
writes:
DO you think
in scheme that I couldn't
resist hacking this together.
Regards
Stefan
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sat 22 Sep 2012 23:28, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
writes:
I've now coded two version of native compilers for x86-64 linux
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
On Mon 15 Oct 2012 16:05, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
writes:
(arg1, return-address, old-frame, program, arg2 ...)
This way we do not need to copy the program field at a tail call
What would you do
I guess I need to consolidate the RTL branch now, and we need to make
sure that we can plug in a JIT. I don't want to incorporate all of this
code at once, so ideally we can make it so that you can load your code
as a module and Guile will have the needed hooks to run JITted code if
it is
Hi
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
Hi,
On Thu 17 Jan 2013 21:51, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
writes:
Hi all, I wanted to resurrect the idea of a syntactic closure. I did
some thinking and
Meta: I seem to be receiving your mails
, I tried to get gnus working but cannot send mail from it :-(
/Stefan
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue 22 Jan 2013 17:19, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
writes:
(read-hash-extend #\_ syntax-closure-reader)
Have you tried having your
, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue 22 Jan 2013 17:19, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
writes:
(read-hash-extend #\_ syntax-closure-reader)
Have you tried having your srfi-72 module export a binding for unsyntax?
I would like to use that of cause, but does it mix well
it was a fun hack, thanks!
/Stefan
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue 22 Jan 2013 17:19, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
writes:
(read-hash-extend #\_ syntax-closure-reader)
Have you tried having your srfi-72 module export a binding for unsyntax
Hi Alex!
Note SRFI-72 is not an implementation of syntactic-closures.
It's an alternate hygiene algorithm closer to the R6RS one which
includes a compatible syntax-case and some convenience utilities.
To comments to this:
1. The main reason for SRFI-72 is to e.g. capture the let bound y in
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
Now when we are tail-calling in rtl, we just fill the argument slots
with the new function arguments directly and then tail-call by filling
in
number of arguments and function. This is very smart and just some
simple features added would mean that a lot of
Hi all,
This is something fun to implement using ck-macros and
local-syntax-value.
The idea is to patch guile's quasisyntax.scm in ice-9 to implement
splicing of macros.
If we assume a reader macro #.code == (macro-splicing code), with the
proposed hack I can now write:
Yes, I can add documentation for it.
/Stefan
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sat 26 Jan 2013 14:03, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
writes:
I will assume that you are familliar with th ck macro, included in
recent guile releases
,
Mikael D.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Alex Shinn alexsh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:
2. I was actually hesistant to call this srfi-72 because of trying to
do what it want
more than what it say's. A main
try to implement a solution for. So in this
light I would say that I practically cover 90% of srfi-72 intention.
But from a theoretical standpoint I would just say 10%.
/Stefan
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org wrote:
Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
Hey Noha,
Great work indeed.
Isn't the primitiveness decided by tree-il? you wil get a (primcall
...) tree il element and then should know how to emit a
corresponding primitive instruction(s). Anyway I think that your
conclusion is right, it would not make sense to support overwriting
these
Hi all,
for what it's worth, I have been playing, for this potluck, with
guile-zmq. I compiled a
small layer on top of that library that should make it easy to
implement some simple
applications consisting of many concurrent small programs by sending
messages between
them.
You can find it at
, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't the primitiveness decided by tree-il? you wil get a (primcall
...) tree il element and then should know how to emit a
corresponding primitive instruction(s).
Oh, you're right. I was thinking about that because I
For the mg-3 case, Actually, only (merge-generics) in mg-3 is needed,
the
accessors are automatically generics.
/Stefan
On Saturday, February 23, 2013 08:54:09 AM Daniel Hartwig wrote:
For those parts specific to racket, did you consider the (language
racket ..) namespace, where an eventual language definition could be
placed also?
Hmm, my problem with this is that to cover the racket lang is a
monumental
Let me illustrate the problem.
Consider macro syntax-parse written in (language racket). My view is
that the
sourcecode for that code should just have been copied from the racket
sources in order to keep the code maintainable. Could we use that
macro from whithin a guile scheme program?
On Sunday, February 24, 2013 10:07:36 PM Ludovic Courtès wrote:
What would have been nice IMO is to import, say, ‘syntax-parse’ and
contracts, without having to pull in a whole compatibility layer.
Ludo’.
I would say that I tried more to make syntax-parse
independent. contracts on the other
Hi guilers!
Inspired by wingo's recent blogage on wingolog in combination with my
portings of racket and cl loop frameworks, I did some thinking about
generators. Especially inlining.
1. Can we make stubs like this inlinable
(iterate (generator g (iterate (for x in l-i-s-t)
Hi all,
In my previous mail I did some discussions about what structure to use
in order to allow efficient implementatin og generators and one main
observation is that the curretn rtl strategy can be used.
Now Have you all thought about the stack beeing a must to execute
funcitons. Well we have
. Is that right?
Best,
Noah
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
I just noted an issue with a programming style, that I suspect
schemers try to avoid but still is quite common in the lisp
community
and actually makes
Hi,
I wouldl like to start a discussion of introducing a way to mark
variables as special, and by that mean that set! variables does not
nessesary get boxed. This is a deviation from the scheme standard but
it's pretty useful if one want to set! local variables but make sure
that the state of the
Weaver m...@netris.org wrote:
Hi Stefan,
Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com writes:
I wouldl like to start a discussion of introducing a way to mark
variables as special, and by that mean that set! variables does not
nessesary get boxed.
I don't think you fully understand
On Thursday, March 21, 2013 11:35:19 AM Noah Lavine wrote:
(lambda ()
(let ((x 5))
(set! x (compute-1 x))
(set! x (compute-2 x))
x))
becomes
(lambda ()
(let ((k1 (lambda (x) (k2 (compute-2 x
(k2 (lambda (x) x)))
(k1 (compute-1 x
However, this
On Thursday, March 21, 2013 03:03:06 PM Mark H Weaver wrote:
Stefan, you're still describing your proposal in terms of low-level
implementation details such as stacks. In the general case, we cannot
store environment structures on the stack. Furthermore, in the
general case *all* variables
Hi list, Mark and Noah,
Yesterday I noticed that the sematics for special variables are quite
close to fluids and decied to see if I could model special variables
ontop of that with-fluids semantics. That was pretty easy. The basic
difference between fluid and special variables is that with
Hi guiler, Hi Daniel.
I lost this thread in my mail application, sorry, so I try to continue
this way instead.
* This feature for scheme is mainly for macro writers which knows what
they are doing and which only guard state varibles not seen to the
application programmer. This is how I use
Ok, I have felt your punches against the idea and have thought about it
somewhat more.
1. I can only conclude that today it's already difficult to reason about code
with respect to multiple restarts of continuation and the main reason is that
at least I have been sloppy to add a ! to the macros
Dear friends,
I think that the current state of guile is in a sad state for logic
programming with prompts in guile. I really think that we should fix
the most pressing issues or stop touting prompts as a way to implement
logic programming and direct to kanren or guile-log instead.
Issues.
1.
Dear friends,
1. I will change the name special variables to
redo-safe-variables. And the parameter semantic I'm using to redo safe
parameters. Itis clumsy but descriptive.
2. To implement these in a good way we need to touch the fundamentals
of scheme. If we want to. But the concept is
101 - 200 of 406 matches
Mail list logo
