() l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
() Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:26:43 +0200
That is, if a file port supports ‘file-port-directory’, then how
to use/restrict the resulting object is left up to higher layers,
where it belongs.
I would put it the other way round: if an application wants to
On Wed 21 Apr 2010 10:40, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
FWIW I’d really prefer if it could work with SRFI-9 (which is purely
syntactic, so there’s no run-time record type descriptor) rather than
with Guile’s records (as above).
There is a run-time rtd, of sorts; it is the
On Wed 21 Apr 2010 23:59, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Here’s a code coverage report for Guile’s Scheme code:
http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/software/guile/guile.lcov/
Very cool, excellent hacking!
A
--
http://wingolog.org/
Hi Ken,
On Wed 21 Apr 2010 19:02, Ken Raeburn raeb...@raeburn.org writes:
On Apr 18, 2010, at 07:41, Andy Wingo wrote:
Specifically, we should make it so that there is nothing you would
want
to go to a core file for. Compiling Scheme code to native code should
never produce code that
Hi Ludovic,
On Tue 20 Apr 2010 18:57, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
2. I think a fluid is still necessary, because a file being
compiled can do an `include' or `include-from-path', or even
`open-input-file' in a macro, and all these cases you would want the
same
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
On Wed 21 Apr 2010 10:40, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
FWIW I’d really prefer if it could work with SRFI-9 (which is purely
syntactic, so there’s no run-time record type descriptor) rather than
with Guile’s records (as above).
There is a
Hi,
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
On Tue 20 Apr 2010 18:57, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
2. I think a fluid is still necessary, because a file being
compiled can do an `include' or `include-from-path', or even
`open-input-file' in a macro, and all these cases you would want
Hi,
On Thu 22 Apr 2010 14:27, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
There would be no penalty making Guile's records interoperable with
SRFI-9 records.
Currently Guile’s SRFI-9 accessors are “integratable” whereas record
accessors aren’t. IOW, until Guile has an inliner, there’d be a
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
This does not affect SRFI-9 accessors at all; they can still be
integrable.
Not unless ‘record-accessor’ is bypassed.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
On Thu 22 Apr 2010 14:57, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
This does not affect SRFI-9 accessors at all; they can still be
integrable.
Not unless ‘record-accessor’ is bypassed.
I'm not talking about implementing srfi-9 record accessors in terms of
ok,
It took much longer time to make this work then the logic deserved
acording to your wishes, mainly because I have not wrapped my head correctly
around define-syntax and friends.
There is a discussion going on right know on accessors et all. I hope that
you can detail the conclusion of that
11 matches
Mail list logo
