Guile-BAUX and Mixp htmlization maps available

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

These data files can be found in directory:

  http://www.gnuvola.org/data/

They are used to generate, for example:

  http://www.gnuvola.org/software/ttn-do/frisk.out.html.gz

Speaking of ttn-do, the slog continues apace; we approach the
unbearable lightness of being free of Guile 1.4.x dependence,
if not remembrance.

REC-xml-20081126.sxml ?

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

Next Mixp release will include some SXML dabblings:

  http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/mixp.git/commit/?id=453b97

Anyone have a REC-xml-20081126.sxml (note extension) for testing?

Re: REC-xml-20081126.sxml ?

[Andy Wingo]

On Mon 22 Aug 2011 18:17, Thien-Thi Nguyen  writes:

> Next Mixp release will include some SXML dabblings:
>
>   http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/mixp.git/commit/?id=453b97
>
> Anyone have a REC-xml-20081126.sxml (note extension) for testing?

You could use Guile's ssax test suite, if you like.

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

Re: REC-xml-20081126.sxml ?

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

() Andy Wingo 
() Mon, 22 Aug 2011 20:11:55 +0200

   You could use Guile's ssax test suite, if you like.

Good idea; thanks for the tip.

Re: Compatibility V1.8 and 2.0 - deprecated (debug-enable 'debug)

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

(Sorry for the late reply.)

Peter TB Brett  skribis:

> Ian Hulin  writes:
>
>> In the Lilypond code we use (debug-enable 'debug) to give full error
>> information when we have Scheme lines embedded in a LilyPond source file.
>>
>> This option has been deprecated in V2.0 but there's no indication in
>> NEWS of how to supply equivalent functionality.
>
> I believe that it's always on in Guile 2.x.

Indeed.

>> We'd like to know how to crack this so we don't have to run with
>> deprecated Guile code when running with V2.
>
> I'd like to know how to detect if it's needed too, since we have
> a similar problem.

(cond-expand (guile-2 'alright)
 (guile (debug-enable 'debug)))

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: Is this a bug?

[Mark H Weaver]

ri...@happyleptic.org wrote:
> ---[ woe.scm ]---
>
> (define-syntax without-exception
>   (syntax-rules ()
>   ((without-exception key thunk ...)
>  (catch key (lambda () thunk 
> ...)
>  (lambda (a . 
> r) #f)
>
> ---[ test.scm ]---
>
> (load "woe.scm")
> (without-exception #t (display "toto\n"))
>
> ---[ EOF ]---
[...]
> /home/rixed/src/sact.junkie/test.scm:2:0: In procedure # ()>:
> /home/rixed/src/sact.junkie/test.scm:2:0: Wrong type to apply: 
> #
>
> This code used to work on guile 1.8, so what's wrong with it?

The problem is that the compiler, while compiling test.scm, sees no
syntax declaration of `without-exception', and therefore assumes that
`without-exception' is simply a top-level variable.

A simple workaround is to use `(include "woe.scm")'.  I don't know the
full details, but my understanding is that unlike `load', `include'
causes the compiler to look for syntax declarations in the included
file.

Another solution (though guile-specific) is to make woe.scm a guile
module, and to use `use-modules' to import it.

Best,
 Mark

Reader syntax for accessing arrays

[Panicz Maciej Godek]

Hi,
I've noticed that one of the biggest inconveniences of lisp is a very
clumsy way of accessing arrays.
Having to write
(array-set! a (* (array-ref a i j) 2) i j))
seems to be unnecessarily prolix, for in C, language designed
specifically to access arrays,
the same operation could be written as
a[i][j] *= 2;

Indeed, LISP is intended for processing lists, but there are certain
tasks where dealing with
arrays is inevitable. So perhaps it would be a good idea to use square
brackets, as it is
done in C, to access arrays, so that
[a i j]
could be understood by the interpreter as
(ref-array a i j)
where ref-array is the appropriate getter with setter.

Therefore I wonder how could this functionality be implemented in
guile, or, preferably,
in generic R^5RS. [I've heard that R^6RS makes no distinction between [] and ()]

Regards
Maciek