Re: Thanks all!
paul writes: > I have just made a release of my app [1] which integrates a Guile > runtime -- since i received invaluable pointers from this mailing > list, i thought folks might be curious as to what i was building. … > 1. Spotiqueue on Github, https://github.com/toothbrush/Spotiqueue Very cool! Congratulations! > Scratches my itch, no other guarantees granted Great definition of purpose! (thumbs up!) Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein, ohne es zu merken. draketo.de signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Is it possible to expand syntax inside match?
Михаил Бахтерев schreef op zo 24-10-2021 om 11:49 [+0500]: > Greetings! > > I wondering, if is it possible to implement something like > this? > > (define-syntax R (syntax-rules () ((_ r v l) #(red r v l > (define-syntax B (syntax-rules () ((_ r v l) #(black r v l > > (define red-black-set-balance > (match-lambda > ((or (B (R (R a x b) y c) z d) > (B (R a x (R b y c)) z d) > (B a x (R (R b y c) z d)) > (B a x (R b y (R c z d (R (B a x b) y (B c z d))) > (node node))) Not exactly what you were looking for, but maybe use quasisyntax / unsyntax #` #, something like (untested): ;; define, not define-syntax! (define R (syntax-rules () ((_ r v l) #(red r v l (define B (syntax-rules () ((_ r v l) #(black r v l (define-syntax red-black-set-balance-m (lambda (s) #`(match-lambda ((or #,(B (R (R a x b) y c) z d) #,(B (R a x (R b y c)) z d) ...)) (node node (define red-black-set-balance red-black-set-balance-m) Greetings, Maxime
SRFI 106 "basic socket interface" in Guile
I noticed that Guile does not implement SRFI 106 (basic socket interface) (https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-106/srfi-106.html). Is there a fundamental reason for the omission? I'm just wondering whether or not Guile has all the socket primitives needed to implement SRFI 106.
Re: SRFI 106 "basic socket interface" in Guile
To my experience on implementing the server-core of Artanis with pure Guile. I think srfi 106 could be mostly covered by the current Guile. However, I'm not sure about some options as constants. Best regards. On Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 13:57 Tim Lee wrote: > I noticed that Guile does not implement SRFI 106 (basic socket interface) > (https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-106/srfi-106.html). Is there a > fundamental reason for the omission? I'm just wondering whether or not > Guile has all the socket primitives needed to implement SRFI 106. > >
Re: SRFI 106 "basic socket interface" in Guile
Tim Lee schreef op ma 25-10-2021 om 02:59 [+]:
> I noticed that Guile does not implement SRFI 106 (basic socket
> interface)
> (https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-106/srfi-106.html). Is there a
> fundamental reason for the omission? I'm just wondering whether or
> not
> Guile has all the socket primitives needed to implement SRFI 106.
>
I don't think Guile has an equivalent of *msg-peek*, *msg-oob*
and *msg-waitall*. I don't know why SRFI 106 asks for socket-
{input/output}-port to return fresh ports, if non-fresh ports
were allowed, the socket itself could be returned. Except for
these issues, everything seems to be implementable in pure GUile.
Greetings,
Maxime
