Re: How to make GNU Guile more successful

Vítor De Araújo writes: > First, I think it would be nice to have a Guile wiki, in the likes of > cliki.net. A publicly-editable reference place where people can share > knowledge about Guile and Guile libraries and projects. Sure, having a > centralized package manager/repository would be nice,

Re: The status of JIT compiler of Guile (was: Guile benchmark)

This version has fixed file missing during compilation. On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Nala Ginrut wrote: > Rebased to the latest, folks may download the tarball directly > https://github.com/NalaGinrut/guile-tjit/releases/tag/tjit-2.1.8.975-1f6fc-rebase > > > On Mon,

Re: The status of JIT compiler of Guile (was: Guile benchmark)

Rebased to the latest, folks may download the tarball directly https://github.com/NalaGinrut/guile-tjit/releases/tag/tjit-2.1.8.975-1f6fc-rebase On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Nala Ginrut wrote: > I've rebased the latest master (2.1.7.1040-0f7db-dirty) and fixed to work.

Re: ffi helper

> On Mar 8, 2017, at 6:06 PM, Matt Wette wrote: > > I’m now working on a FFI helper based on the nyacc C99 parser. So, like, I think what might be useful is something that will convert a dot-h file to a spec file, with certain assumptions about function signatures

Re: Controlling optimizations in 2.2

On Mon 13 Mar 2017 15:10, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Andy Wingo skribis: > >> Incidentally in 2.2 the options you need to turn off optimization are a >> little more complicated. We have "guild compile -O0" which will produce >> the right set of options but nothing

A REPL plugin for Nvim

Hello everybody, I have been doing some Scheme work in Guile over the past few week and I’m the one weirdo who doesn’t use Emacs, I use Nvim instead. The lack of proper REPL support was annoying me, I had to go through the ritual of opening a new terminal buffer and starting Guile with the

Re: lilypond progress

David Kastrup writes: > The "main roadblocks" in relation to which goal? To make Guile2 a step > forward as compared to Guile1, we are more or less struggling to reach > the starting line, namely being able to use Guile2 reliably enough as > to be able to start targeted, well-defined, effective

Re: How to make GNU Guile more successful

My mind has actually been oscillating between "trick", "toy", "thing" and "torrent". The last one would go particularly nice with the concept of "GitTorrent" http://blog.printf.net/articles/2015/05/29/announcing-gittorrent-a-decentralized-github/ 2017-03-13 16:55 GMT+01:00 Nala Ginrut

Re: How to make GNU Guile more successful

Well, I like tofu :-) Thien-Thi Nguyen 于2017年3月11日周六 16:48写道： > > () Panicz Maciej Godek > () Fri, 10 Mar 2017 16:08:23 +0100 > >Essentially the power of this idea is that it suddenly turns >the whole web into a Guile Incomprehensive Archive Network

Re: lilypond progress

Arne Babenhauserheide writes: > David Kastrup writes: > >> Arne Babenhauserheide writes: >>> This choice is much, much better than before. The choice before was "I’m >>> losing Lilypond!" (and not much of a choice). >> >> No, the choice was "I need to use the

Re: lilypond progress

David Kastrup writes: > Arne Babenhauserheide writes: >> This choice is much, much better than before. The choice before was "I’m >> losing Lilypond!" (and not much of a choice). > > No, the choice was "I need to use the installer provided on LilyPond's > web page". Then let

Controlling optimizations in 2.2

Andy Wingo skribis: > Incidentally in 2.2 the options you need to turn off optimization are a > little more complicated. We have "guild compile -O0" which will produce > the right set of options but nothing like #:optimize-level 0 or > something that you can pass to `compile'.

Re: Lilypond speed (was Re: How to make GNU Guile more successful)

On Mon 13 Mar 2017 00:20, Matt Wette writes: > If lilypond is performing a lot of eval or lambda generation would turning > off optimization help? > > (compile expr #:opts ‘(#:partial-eval? #f #:cse? #f)) I think Lilypond is currently not going through the compiler

Re: autoconf macros

Ah the INIT was missing ! Now the configure file is populated ! Sorry for the fuss 2017-03-13 12:42 GMT+01:00 Catonano : > Hello, > > I copied an example of autoconf macros for an ideal guile based project > from the guile manual > > Only, instead of verifying if pgp is

autoconf macros

Hello, I copied an example of autoconf macros for an ideal guile based project from the guile manual Only, instead of verifying if pgp is present, I would like to verify if wiredtiger is present So this is the excerpt from the manual # gpgutils AC_PATH_PROG(GNUPG,gpg) test

Re: lilypond progress

Hi Thomas, Thomas Morley skribis: > Additionally let me say, without being able to give a proof, for small > and medium ly-scores I've got the impression lily-guile-2.1.8 is > faster than with guile-2.0.14 and 2.1.7 and the gap to lily with > guile-1.8.8 is not that

Re: lilypond progress

2017-03-12 22:58 GMT+01:00 Arne Babenhauserheide : > Whether being slower actually gives Lilypond a bad reputation is mostly > unclear. For the professional engravers among our users speed _is_ a critical criterion. Cheers, Harm

Re: lilypond progress

2017-03-13 9:52 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup : > Thomas Morley writes: >> 2017-03-12 18:37 GMT+01:00 Arne Babenhauserheide : >>> In the past 6 years Guile 2.x for Lilypond changed from "it does not >>> work at all and Lilypond might be purged

Re: lilypond progress

Arne Babenhauserheide writes: > Hi Harm, > > I see your input, but I’m comparing this with how it looked like 5 years > ago: I could not even compile my own songs anymore with Guile 2.x > installed. > > First for the most important part I see in your mail: > >> And we still may

Re: lilypond progress

Thomas Morley writes: > Hi Arne, > > I really apreciate your interest and the energy you've put on LilyPond. > Though I beg to differ in some regards. > Please excuse if my wordings are a little rough, I'm a non-native speaker.. > > 2017-03-12 18:37 GMT+01:00 Arne

Re: lilypond progress

Arne Babenhauserheide writes: > Hi, > > > With all this focus on problems, I’d like to give a perspective on > progress with Lilypond: > > In the past 6 years Guile 2.x for Lilypond changed from "it does not > work at all and Lilypond might be purged from distros" to "it’s a lot