How to do "ls /tmp > /dev/null" in Guile?

Hello, in the guile REPL I evaluated the following: (with-output-to-port (%make-void-port "w") (lambda () (display "foo") (newline))) and I got no output as expected. Then I tried the following: (with-output-to-port (%make-void-port "w") (lambda () (system* "ls" "/tmp"))) but

Re: help needed with (test-suite lib)

Matt Wette (2016-03-10 05:08 +0300) wrote: > I am using test-suite/lib.scm from guile-2.0.11. > > > Can anyone explain why I am getting “UNRESOLVED” below? I am > expecting “PASS”. What am I missing? It shouldn't be a lambda (see below). > mwette$ guile > > GNU Guile 2.0.11 > > Copyright (C)

Re: How to do "ls /tmp > /dev/null" in Guile?

Marko Rauhamaa (2016-03-19 14:02 +0300) wrote: > Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com>: > >> Hello, in the guile REPL I evaluated the following: >> >> (with-output-to-port (%make-void-port "w") >> (lambda () (display "foo") (newline

[ANN] Guile-XOSD 0.2

Guile-XOSD provides Guile bindings for 'libxosd' library: The main change since v0.1 is: original procedures (with "xosd-" prefix) moved to (xosd bindings) module. Now (xosd) module contains more "Schemey" procedures (for example 'make-osd' with keyword

[ANN] Guile-Daemon 0.1

Guile-Daemon is a small Guile program that loads your initial configuration file, and then reads and evaluates Guile expressions that you send to a FIFO file: Git repo:

Re: Guile security vulnerability w/ listening on localhost + port (with fix)

Lizzie Dixon (2016-10-14 14:55 -0700) wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/11, Christopher Allan Webber wrote: >> The default in Guile has been to expose a port over localhost to which >> code may be passed. The assumption for this is that only a local user >> may write to localhost, so it should be safe.

Re: Yet another GNU Guile package manager (Fwd: Re: How to make GNU Guile more successful)

Matt Wette (2017-03-16 05:07 -0700) wrote: >> On Mar 16, 2017, at 2:03 AM, carl hansen wrote: >> ​" >> guile-lib >> >> guile-lib is intended as an accumulation place for pure-scheme Guile >> modules, allowing for people to cooperate integrating their generic Guile >>

Re: ?-suffix for booleans... good-idea? or bad-idea?

Paul (2017-04-25 12:21 -0400) wrote: > On 04/25/2017 11:50 AM, Jan Wedekind wrote: > >> What do people think? I'm struggling with deciding what's the right >> thing for my own code, but leaning towards "we shouldn't use the ? >> suffix for just boolean values". > > I like using the '?' suffix