Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Absolutely, yes. One day we should get to de-polluting the guile-user
namespace ...
Document or hide.
Yes, except that I think Kevin's patch using process-use-modules is
even better, because it avoids needing the resolve-interface calls,
and also does
Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems to me, though, that this is all a matter of ordering, not of
whether the duplicates processing gets invoked.
I thought that too, until just fiddling with the order didn't fix
srfi-17 (which #:replace's car
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Hi,
Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems to me, though, that this is all a matter of ordering, not of
whether the duplicates processing gets invoked. I don't know all the
details of the duplicate processing, but by default I would
Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh, and I added test-suite/standalone/test-use-srfi exercising this
stuff. The guile in the script is the uninstalled guile during a
make check, you might have to search and replace it to
pre-inst-guile if you want to run outside that.
Sorry for coming
Actually, I find my change is enough for srfi-1 iota, but not for
srfi-17 car in 1.8, probably because it's a #:replacement.
Does the change below to use process-use-modules in both use-srfis and
top-repl seem better? The idea would be to do the same as the guts of
an ordinary use-modules.
---
Oh, and I added test-suite/standalone/test-use-srfi exercising this
stuff. The guile in the script is the uninstalled guile during a
make check, you might have to search and replace it to
pre-inst-guile if you want to run outside that.
___
Guile-devel
Hi,
Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Though the change I propose is:
--- boot-9.scm.~1.356.2.4.~ 2006-11-29 05:55:55.0 +1100
+++ boot-9.scm2006-12-05 14:14:31.0 +1100
@@ -3397,9 +3397,7 @@
'(ice-9 debugger) '(debug)))
Hi,
Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven Hartrumpf on guile-user a while ago reported on a run of
guile --use-srfi=1
leaves the REPL with the core `iota', not the srfi-1 one. What's the
theory behind this bit of top-repl (in boot-9.scm),
;; so that builtin bindings will
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Wild guess: Does the following fix the problem:
(module-use-interfaces! guile-user-module
(resolve-interface '(ice-9 r5rs))
(resolve-interface '(guile)))
No, apparently, though the theory
I wrote:
No, apparently, though the theory would seem sound ...
Oops, I was doing it wrong, that does work.
Though the change I propose is:
--- boot-9.scm.~1.356.2.4.~ 2006-11-29 05:55:55.0 +1100
+++ boot-9.scm 2006-12-05 14:14:31.0 +1100
@@ -3397,9 +3397,7 @@
10 matches
Mail list logo
