I see that a patch has been committed. It is conflicting with another
patch of mine and it does not follow from the srfi-1 specification.
To wit:
http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-1/srfi-1.html#ImproperLists>
Most procedures are defined only on proper lists -- that is, finite,
nil-terminat
Mark H Weaver wrote:
> A couple of years ago I added an undocumented
> #:max-expr-width keyword argument to pretty-print, in
> order to improve the formatting of psyntax-pp.scm. You
> could use that.
Nice, but why leave it undocumented? That's useful!
Anyway, I can't use it yet: my project stil
* module/srfi/srfi-1.scm (take-right, drop-right, drop-right!): The
definitions tended to be overly complicate and/or rely on pushing
material on the VM stack, detrimental to scalability for Guile 2.0 and
also worse for performance.
The changed definitions lead to different, more accurate
* libguile/srfi-1.c (scm_srfi1_length_plus): Previously, length+
returned #f for dotted lists. This leaves the user with no efficient
means for determining the length of dotted lists. While the Scheme
standard does not prescribe a behavior here, the reference
implementation at
http://sr
* module/srfi/srfi-1.scm (reduce-right): Avoid use of drop-right in
connection with last as a single upfront reverse is more efficient and
simpler to understand.
Signed-off-by: David Kastrup
---
module/srfi/srfi-1.scm | 5 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mo
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Mark H Weaver skribis:
>
>> Perhaps we should consider making #:select issue a warning when it
>> imports private bindings,
>
> Yes, sounds like a good idea.
Sounds good. Specifically, I guess we should deprecate this way of
using #:select.
If you do th
Mark H Weaver writes:
> Sounds good. Specifically, I guess we should deprecate this way of
> using #:select.
>
> If you do this, can you adjust system/repl/coop-server.scm to avoid it?
> It imports the following private bindings:
>
> start-repl* run-server* add-open-socket! close-socket!
Also:
David Kastrup writes:
> So the behavior for length+ on a dotted list is strictly unspecified.
> It is not even stated "it is an error".
Actually, it is. At the end of the section that defines the "types"
such a "clist" and "flist", it states:
It is an error to pass a circular or dotted list t
I like this patch, but I think your extended 'length+' procedure should
be given a different name.
Mark
David Kastrup writes:
> * module/srfi/srfi-1.scm (reduce-right): Avoid use of drop-right in
> connection with last as a single upfront reverse is more efficient and
> simpler to understand.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Kastrup
> ---
> module/srfi/srfi-1.scm | 5 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insert
Hi David,
David Kastrup writes:
> * libguile/srfi-1.c (scm_srfi1_length_plus): Previously, length+
> returned #f for dotted lists. This leaves the user with no efficient
> means for determining the length of dotted lists. While the Scheme
> standard does not prescribe a behavior here, th
David Kastrup writes:
> * module/srfi/srfi-1.scm (take-right, drop-right, drop-right!): The
> definitions tended to be overly complicate and/or rely on pushing
> material on the VM stack, detrimental to scalability for Guile 2.0 and
> also worse for performance.
>
> The changed definition
Mark H Weaver writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>> So the behavior for length+ on a dotted list is strictly unspecified.
>> It is not even stated "it is an error".
>
> Actually, it is. At the end of the section that defines the "types"
> such a "clist" and "flist", it states:
>
> It is an error
Mark H Weaver writes:
> Hi David,
>
> David Kastrup writes:
>
>> * libguile/srfi-1.c (scm_srfi1_length_plus): Previously, length+
>> returned #f for dotted lists. This leaves the user with no efficient
>> means for determining the length of dotted lists. While the Scheme
>> standard does
14 matches
Mail list logo
