yeah I discovered that nasty license stuff recently. Actually I have a problem
in choosing the right license for my wrapper. the lib itself is apache2 but I
dont´t like that for my wrapper. Are there possibilities to override that built
in virus behaviour? And I think it depends if you wrap a
Please understand my priorities:
* Dealing with the aforementioned threat of "even more restrictive than
copyleft" licenses is the most pressing concern, and it's an issue that I hope
most people can agree on. Nim module licenses are not the place to punish
people you don't like.
* The
> Is there are something like this in Nim?
proc foo =
discard
Run
> Checking that the Nimble license metadata matches the license claims in the
> code.
Very true.
> I think most people will disagree with me on where this line should be drawn..
Very true :o)
> .., but it needs to be drawn somewhere...
Yes, individually by every user of a library. If I don't
Did you know that using Nim's import keyword supposedly constitutes entering
into a contract? Are you aware of all the legalese imposed on you by the
modules you use (as well as their dependencies, and their dependencies'
dependencies, etc)? Here are a few examples:
* The
I am a newer to Nim programing language. when I use Python, I can use the
'pass' to skip the defination detail of a function and class. ..
def foo():
pass # skip detail
class Bar():
pass
nim
Is there are something like this in Nim?
I have a C library clib.c with this function. int hi(char*
hello) { return 900; } compiled as: gcc clib.c -o clib.so --shared
-fPIC I'm consuming this in a Nim libray called 'nlib.nim`:
proc hi*(hello: cstring): cint {.cdecl, importc: "hi", dynlib:
"./clib.so".} proc hi2*(hello: cstring):
I would double-check the ZLIB binding code that you have, to make sure that
everything is correct. This looks suspiciously like a memory-corruption issue,
which tends to happen when Nim bindnigs don't accurately represent the
functions/structures they are wrapping.
You
So while cleaning up
[https://github.com/haldean/nimage](https://github.com/haldean/nimage) I came
across a rather weird bug, which results in a segfault/SIGSEV.
To reproduce, clone this repo:
[https://github.com/Clyybber/nimage.git](https://github.com/Clyybber/nimage.git)
and checkout the
@cblake True, true. I was simply enjoying that I could write "one through
fifty, so fifty times" very simply and easy to read in nim, whereas I just
relied on trained C eyes to interpret the C code of its intended meaning "zero
up until 50, meaning 50 times". Perhaps nim's `countup()` would
Is there any reason that getContent should hang indefinitely even if httpclient
has been given a set timeout?
With such a brief comment, it's hard to know which is why I said "probably
intending". Only one person knows. ;) Maybe he did think iterators cost more.
You are right I did misread his 1..50 as 0..50 {after looking at the first
version of the ggibson Nim code, not the 2nd where he confusingly
> @mratsim is probably intending to refer to the .. including 50 in Nim while
> the C for with a < excludes 50
I doubt that because he has written **1** .. 50 ;)
> Do you think it is feasible?
probably not. what would likely be needed is that nim would expose a nim
api/abi to nlvm, much like if you had wrapped a c++ library with a c api.. that
would require a lot of changes to nim, including specifying an ABI etc.
header pragmas for C stuff are kind of
Is it possible to run all failed tests using unittest? If not, is there a nim
testing framework that allows this?
@mratsim is probably intending to refer to the `..` including `50` in Nim while
the C `for` with a `<` excludes `50` doing about 2% less work, but the
terseness and style of of his comment may leave the wrong impression.
for i in 0..50: echo i
Run
indeed compiles
Also for r in 1 .. 50: does more work than C for (size_t r=0; r<50; r++) {
17 matches
Mail list logo
