Re: [PATCH] Fix error messages containing format strings

> On 23 Apr 2024, at 10:54, Michael Käppler wrote: > > Hi all, > I recently posted a bug report together with a patch to bug-guile, but > received no response at all: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guile/2024-04/msg0.html > > I don't know what the preferred way of reporting

Re: Close 10519, and, how to close bug on debbugs?

> On 18 Jul 2023, at 18:20, Mike Gran wrote: > > Hi, > > I was looking at https://debbugs.gnu.org/db/pa/lguile.html > and saw that 10519 (add mini-gmp) should be closed. > > How do you actually close a bug? > > Thanks, > Mike Gran An email to -done @ debbugs.gnu.org will close the

Re: Add internal definitions to derived forms

Guile already allows mixed definitions and expressions in let bodies (since 2.9.4), which isn't in any of the Scheme reports. It's up to authors to avoid or isolate Guile extensions if they want to remain rnrs compatible, and this patch doesn't change that. Being able to put definitions in

Re: Add internal definitions to derived forms

> On 24 Jan 2023, at 10:02, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > Hi! > > lloda skribis: > >>>> @lisp >>>> -(@var{test} @var{body} @dots{}) >>>> +(@var{test} @var{body}) >>> >>> I think removing dots is incorrect her

Re: Add internal definitions to derived forms

Hi Ludovic, > On 23 Jan 2023, at 23:13, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > Chiming in late in the discussion… > > lloda skribis: > >> From 7aea299373f7370f31c9701035260ad412763724 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Daniel Llorens >> Date:

Re: GNU Guile 3.0.9rc1 available for testing!

lgtm, no other issues on mac os. thanks Daniel

Re: GNU Guile 3.0.9rc1 available for testing!

This looks like https://debbugs.gnu.org/60971 on mac os. Regards Daniel

Re: Add internal definitions to derived forms

> On 19 Jan 2023, at 18:54, lloda wrote: > > Attached a patch that applies after yours and refers to the explanation of > bodies elsewhere in the manual. Wdyt? Second version, fixes text for the same type of body for other forms. Regards Daniel 0002-Fix-documentation-for-

Re: Add internal definitions to derived forms

Attached a patch that applies after yours and refers to the explanation of bodies elsewhere in the manual. Wdyt? Regards Daniel 0001-Fix-doc-for-conditional-forms-taking-lambda-like-bod.patch Description: Binary data

Re: [PATCH] Document R7RS bytevector functions

Hi Ludovic, thanks for the review. Second version attached. > We should keep the manual in sync with docstrings in bytevectors.c. > > Thus, my suggestion would be to not insert comments and footnotes about > R7RS in the existing sections, but instead to do that in the new section. Following

[PATCH] Document R7RS bytevector functions

Hi Right now the manual just mentions (scheme base), but not the contents. This patch at least makes sure that at least the bytevector-related R7RS functions appear in the index. The patch documents a first group of purely bytevector functions and a second group of binary I/O that are not

Re: [EXT] [PATCH] Add 'bytevector-slice'.

> On 12 Jan 2023, at 23:27, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > lloda skribis: > >>> On 11 Jan 2023, at 18:37, Thompson, David wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:34 PM Ludovic Courtès wrote: >>>> >>>> What could be convenient

Re: [EXT] [PATCH] Add 'bytevector-slice'.

> On 11 Jan 2023, at 18:37, Thompson, David wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:34 PM Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> >> What could be convenient though is ‘bytevector-copy’ (no bang), which >> would combine ‘make-bytevector’ + ‘bytevector-copy!’. > > 'bytevector-copy' already exists, or do you

Re: The mysterious ‘SCM_F_BYTEVECTOR_CONTIGUOUS’

> On 11 Jan 2023, at 19:51, lloda wrote: > > Contiguity is a trivial check. I mean if bytevectors even had a stride field.

Re: The mysterious ‘SCM_F_BYTEVECTOR_CONTIGUOUS’

I think this flag has no use and you should just remove all references to it and deprecate it. Contiguity is a trivial check. We removed a similar flag in the array type not long ago. Regards Daniel

Re: [PATCH] Recognize LoongArch compilation targets.

Pushed to f3ea8f7fa1d84a559c7bf834fe5b675abe0ae7b8. Thank you!

Re: [PATCH v3] Add tests for warning locations.

Pushed to 02f69c1d84126c35900c5743a712b1e7d07e449d. Thank you!

Re: [PATCH] Avoid 'frame-local-ref' errors when printing backtrace.

Pushed to c7fa78fc751eb336bcfafbb5ac59c460ee2c5d7a. Thank you!

Re: Add internal definitions to derived forms

Hi Linus, I don't understand the following change since at least one expression is required in these clauses. @lisp (@var{test} => @var{expression}) @@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ result of the @code{cond}-expression. @var{key} may be any expression, and the @var{clause}s must have the form @lisp

Re: [PATCH] Properly display locations in "source vector" form.

Ah this one has been bugging me. Applied in eb5ecf4944cd646341f7e47dda5396cf96a4b8a3. Thank you!

Re: [PATCH] Documentation typo fix

Applied in 68aeffe8dda02ae3248a9fc035cea73384ee7b6c. Thanks! > On 15 Feb 2022, at 23:40, Vijay Marupudi wrote: > > Hello! > > I have attached a patch that fixes the simple example of defining (unless > ...) with a macro. > > ~ Vijay > > From 42c830b3d14106d18df154d9a34fff2a9ffa532e Mon Sep

Re: guile array different than srfi 25

Guile arrays were implemented before srfi-25 existed and aren't supposed to be compatible with it. There are many other array srfis all with incompatible syntaxes... However srfi-25 is tiny so it should be really simple to implement it on top of Guile arrays. If you or anyone else submits a

Re: [PATCH] New function array-mutable?

> On 25 Nov 2021, at 19:56, lloda wrote: > > > >> On 25 Nov 2021, at 19:22, Maxime Devos wrote: >> >> lloda schreef op do 25-11-2021 om 17:40 [+0100]: >>> +Arrays with empty roots are not considered immutable because >>> +@code{array-set!}

Re: [PATCH] New function array-mutable?

> On 25 Nov 2021, at 19:19, Maxime Devos wrote: > > lloda schreef op do 25-11-2021 om 17:40 [+0100]: >> [...] > > Suggestion: add a few tests to test-suite/tests/arrays.test: > > (pass-if-equal "new" > #t > (array-mutable? (make-array #f '(1 2

Re: [PATCH] New function array-mutable?

> On 25 Nov 2021, at 19:22, Maxime Devos wrote: > > lloda schreef op do 25-11-2021 om 17:40 [+0100]: >> +Arrays with empty roots are not considered immutable because >> +@code{array-set!} operations with valid indices won't fail (since >> there >> +are no

[PATCH] New function array-mutable?

Doesn't seem there was any simple way to check this from either Scheme or C. 0001-New-function-array-mutable.patch Description: Binary data

Re: how to submit error in documentation

Hi, I just fixed this in git, thanks for the report. But yeah, if you have more, like Arun says, ideally send it to bug-guile. That way if no one gets to it immediately at least it will be tracked. Regards Daniel > On 22 Nov 2021, at 11:47, Arun Isaac wrote: > > > Hi Damien, >

Re: [PATCH] Support C99 complex types in (system foreign)

Applied with some style changes in 496f69dba2fdf1720b40349932fcdecd444107c3.

[PATCH] Support C99 complex types in (system foreign)

0001-Support-C99-complex-types-in-system-foreign.patch Description: Binary data

Re: more advanced bytevector => supervectors

hese kind of > patterns > it is still better to work in C as it probaly vectorises the operation quite > well. Supervectors supports pushing busy loops to C very well and I will > probably > enable fast C code for some simple utility ops. > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 9:18 AM lloda &

Re: more advanced bytevector => supervectors

t performs transform form one supervector to another > is a general > ideom that would use the full dispatc which is not practical, I'm curious where you're going with this. I implemented something similar (iiuc) in https://github.com/lloda/guile-newra/ <https://github.com/lloda

Re: [PATCH] foreign-library: fix darwin detection

Patch is applied in 1f100a4f20c3a6e57922fb26fce212997e2a03cb, thanks. However I cannot build Guile on macos at the moment bc of an error in lib/basename-lgpl.h, this seems caused by the last gnulib update :-\ > On 2 Sep 2021, at 07:38, Aleix Conchillo Flaqué wrote: > > Without this change

Re: [PATCH v2] Parse #{{}}# properly.

Applied in c78c130b1ddef6d6c290533f74ce1fbd51a4b19d. Thank you! > On 20 Jul 2021, at 12:54, Maxime Devos wrote: > > Maxime Devos schreef op zo 18-07-2021 om 21:47 [+0200]: >> It turns out that the test fails when the patch >> is applies to guile@3.0.7. I'll rebase and try >> to figure things

Re: Add ‘expt’ to the list of effect-free primitives

Applied to main, thanks.

Re: Unable to build Guile on macOS

> On 9 Apr 2021, at 00:10, Aleix Conchillo Flaqué wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 1:10 PM lloda wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 8 Apr 2021, at 06:43, Aleix Conchillo Flaqué >>> wrote: >>> >>> The following recent Gnulib com

Re: Unable to build Guile on macOS

> On 8 Apr 2021, at 06:43, Aleix Conchillo Flaqué wrote: > > The following recent Gnulib commit fixes the issue: > > https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/commit/?id=fc6d7d850bdebfed81e9212910f44edf99dd7743 > > If someone could update Gnulib to a more recent version I'd really >

Re: [PATCH] Add string-replace-substring to (ice-9 string-fun)

> On 5 Jan 2020, at 13:12, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > > Andy Wingo writes: > >> On Fri 20 Dec 2019 18:32, lloda writes: >> >>> This patch adds string-replace-substring that wingo posted to the >>> mailing list to (ice-9 strings). This

[PATCH] Add string-replace-substring to (ice-9 string-fun)

This patch adds string-replace-substring that wingo posted to the mailing list to (ice-9 strings). This is a commonly used function and a good implementation isn't trivial, so I think it deserves inclusion. 0001-Add-string-replace-substring-to-ice-9-string-fun.patch Description: Binary data

[PATCH] Extend-core-vector-fill-to-handle-a-range.patch

This patch moves vector-fill! from srfi-43 into core, replacing the old vector-fill!. This is a compatible extension. I haven't touched the C binding vector_fill_x, so that is still limited to the full vector. Regards Daniel