Re: [patches] three patches for configure.ac (and not only)

2011-04-01 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi Douglas, On Tue 29 Mar 2011 19:52, Douglas Mencken writes: > Patch #1: Can you re-post these patches as patches, please, using `diff -u', or git-format-patch. Please include log messages as well. Thanks, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/

Re: build errors: 9172 Broken pipe and 9173 Segmentation fault

2011-04-01 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi, On Tue 29 Mar 2011 19:07, Douglas Mencken writes: > dougmencken: the real problem seems to be that an > infinite recursion results while handling a string decoding error. it > is also curious why a decoding error is happening with uClibc that > does not occur with glibc, but that's seconda

Re: Guile with win32 cross compiling

2011-04-01 Thread Andy Wingo
On Sat 26 Mar 2011 23:06, Volker Grabsch writes: > The first issue is the "#include " in gen-scmconfig, > which has already been discussed in the past and for which I > already provided a clean, working solution. I forward-ported > my patch to guile-2.0.0 and it seems to work. This patch is > att

list->c32vector and list->c64vector should accept complex numbers

2011-04-01 Thread Tobias Brandt
I expected this to work: scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (srfi srfi-4 gnu)) scheme@(guile-user)> (list->c64vector '(1.0+1.0i)) srfi/srfi-4/gnu.scm:92:2: In procedure bytevector-c64-native-set!: srfi/srfi-4/gnu.scm:92:2: Wrong type (expecting real number): 1.0+1.0i

Re: list->c32vector and list->c64vector should accept complex numbers

2011-04-01 Thread Andy Wingo
On Fri 01 Apr 2011 08:24, Tobias Brandt writes: > I expected this to work: > > scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (srfi srfi-4 gnu)) > scheme@(guile-user)> (list->c64vector '(1.0+1.0i)) > srfi/srfi-4/gnu.scm:92:2: In procedure bytevector-c64-native-set!: > srfi/srfi-4/gnu.scm:92:2: Wrong type (exp

Re: Guile with win32 cross compiling

2011-04-01 Thread Volker Grabsch
Andy Wingo schrieb: > On Sat 26 Mar 2011 23:06, Volker Grabsch writes: > > > The first issue is the "#include " in gen-scmconfig, > > which has already been discussed in the past and for which I > > already provided a clean, working solution. I forward-ported > > my patch to guile-2.0.0 and it se

quote oddity

2011-04-01 Thread Bill Schottstaedt
Does this strike you guys as kind of odd? guile> ((lambda (s c) (s c)) quote #f) c guile> ((lambda (q) (let ((x 1)) (q x))) quote) x I can't decide what I think.

Re: quote oddity

2011-04-01 Thread dsmich
Bill Schottstaedt wrote: > Does this strike you guys as kind of odd? > > guile> ((lambda (s c) (s c)) quote #f) > c > guile> ((lambda (q) (let ((x 1)) (q x))) quote) > x > > I can't decide what I think. Well, quote is syntax. You can't pass it around like a function. Guile 2.0 fixes th

Re: quote oddity

2011-04-01 Thread Bill Schottstaedt
> Well, quote is syntax. You can't pass it around like a function. Guile 2.0 > fixes that: that's an improvement?

Re: quote oddity

2011-04-01 Thread Andy Wingo
On Sat 02 Apr 2011 00:53, "Bill Schottstaedt" writes: >> Well, quote is syntax. You can't pass it around like a function. Guile 2.0 >> fixes that: > > that's an improvement? I *think* so. I think we can agree that in general uniformity is better, and this case certainly has that property.