On Wed 02 Sep 2015 20:34, Mike Gran writes:
> On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 11:06 AM, Mark H Weaver
> wrote:
>
>>Would it help to replace all uses of the term "scan" with "mark", in
>>connection with garbage collection? In the papers I've read on GC,
>>"mark" is the word I usually see, and
On Sun 28 Jun 2015 15:59, "Wette, Matthew R (3441)"
writes:
> In the guile reference manual,
> in API Reference,
> in Input and Output,
> in Ports?,
> might be a nice place to provide documentation for
> the procedure with-input-from-port.
Done in master, thanks for the note.
Andy
On Tue 30 Jun 2015 15:50, Josep Portella Florit writes:
> This code crashes Guile 2.0.11:
>
> (define x (make-dynamic-state))
> (with-dynamic-state x (lambda () (/ 1 0)))
Related: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel/16953
How are you using dynamic states?
Andy
Thanks for the report.
On Tue 30 Jun 2015 21:43, Christopher White writes:
> For your information, make check produced one error, on OS X Yosemite.
>
> FAIL: numbers.test: string->number: valid complex number strings
Does this still happen for you?
If so, can you paste this at a REPL or in a f
On Wed 08 Jul 2015 20:48, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
writes:
> When using the profiler in a pure module ,profile does not work
>
> The reason is that in
> scmsigs.c,
>
> At an evaluation occurs from C e.g.
>
> static SCM
> close_1 (SCM proc, SCM arg)
> {
> return scm_primitive_eval_x (scm_list_3
Fixed in git. Thanks!
Andy
On Wed 15 Jul 2015 13:27, "Glenn Michaels" writes:
> The following patch fixes a typo in the guile texinfo docs,
> see https://bugs.debian.org/765286 for more info.
>
> --- a/doc/ref/api-data.texi
> +++ b/doc/ref/api-data.texi
> @@ -5849,7 +5849,7 @@ of the form @cod
Mark H Weaver skribis:
> Andy Wingo writes:
>
>> In many ways I think Ludovic was right in #15602 -- we should allow
>> excursions to isolate changes to the module tree. Sometimes you want an
>> excursion to never add a module to the tree. Sometimes you do, but
>> maybe all in one go and with
On Fri 17 Jul 2015 01:00, Andreas Rottmann writes:
>> Alternatively, the (system foreign) module in guile could provide a
>> simple low-level wrapper around lt_dlopen, and possibly implement
>> the higher level functionality of `dynamic-link' (additional search
>> paths, guessing extensions etc.)
On Mon 20 Jul 2015 00:10, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> The ‘sanitize-response’ procedure systematically loads the whole
> response body in memory, which causes obvious scalability issues (this
> is in 2.0.11.)
>
> In particular, when a request handler returns a port-taking procedure as
thanks
Hello!
Andy Wingo skribis:
> On Thu 23 Jun 2016 15:06, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Andy Wingo skribis:
>>
>>> commit 9a951678713557b548415d32eae6d63d039bf652
>>> Author: Andy Wingo
>>> Date: Thu Jun 23 10:03:10 2016 +0200
>>>
>>> Fix relative file name canonicalization on
Mark, do you have any thoughts on this one?
A
On Mon 03 Aug 2015 06:29, Rob Browning writes:
> Rob Browning writes:
>
>> To follow up, it does look like it might be broken, but you can ignore
>> my suggested fix.
>
> I'm not that familiar with srfi-64, but it looks like the problem (if
> it's
On Tue 28 Jul 2015 10:06, Daniel Llorens writes:
> The default history-length is 200. When one imports (ice-9 readline),
> history is stifled to this value, so it doesn't matter if you set
> history-length to a larger value later on. I'm surprised that this has
> gone unnoticed up to now, since 2
Andy Wingo wrote:
>I also don't
>know whether to supply an optional "encoding" argument, and use that
>encoding to decode the command line arguments.
That, or something that just retrieves octets, is necessary. Decoding via
the selected loca
On Tue 25 Aug 2015 21:42, taylanbayi...@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich
"Bayırlı/Kammer") writes:
> When there are relative paths in the load-path, `include-from-path'
> seems to always interpret them relative to the directory of the file in
> which the `include-from-path' is called, instead of relative
Hi :)
On Fri 24 Jun 2016 10:28, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hello!
>
> Andy Wingo skribis:
>
>> On Thu 23 Jun 2016 15:06, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>
>>> ‘canonicalize_file_name’ is costly: roughly one syscall per file name
>>> component.
>>>
>>> IIUC, ‘canonicalize_fi
Andy Wingo skribis:
> On Mon 20 Jul 2015 00:10, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> The ‘sanitize-response’ procedure systematically loads the whole
>> response body in memory, which causes obvious scalability issues (this
>> is in 2.0.11.)
>>
>> In particular, when a request handler retu
It does seem clear that we have a bug here; evidently signals do not
wake up the reader, neither with readline nor without.
Andy
On Sun 06 Sep 2015 19:18, Rob Browning writes:
> [If possible, please preserve the -forwarded address in any replies.]
>
> Reference: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/
Andy Wingo skribis:
> On Fri 24 Jun 2016 10:28, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> Andy Wingo skribis:
>>
>>> On Thu 23 Jun 2016 15:06, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>>
‘canonicalize_file_name’ is costly: roughly one syscall per file name
component.
> From: Andy Wingo
> Cc: 14...@debbugs.gnu.org, l...@gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:52:37 +0200
>
> On Tue 21 Jun 2016 17:42, Eli Zaretskii writes:
>
> >> From: Andy Wingo
> >> Cc: 14...@debbugs.gnu.org, l...@gnu.org
> >> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:06:05 +0200
> >>
> >> Let's give it a
I'm happy with this fix! However I think I would like to see if I can
just speed up thunk? and other arity accessors. Do you have a test
case that you can use to show the speed problem?
Andy
On Sat 14 Nov 2015 03:54, Christopher Allan Webber
writes:
> Here's a fix to this bug. Tests pass, a
On Fri 18 Sep 2015 17:19, Christopher Allan Webber
writes:
> I was testing a program of mine under Guile 2.2, and was surprised to
> find things slower than in Guile 2.0, surprising given all the various
> optimizations I've heard about! However, I think I've found good clues
> as to what's goi
On Tue 29 Sep 2015 20:21, Wilhelm Schuster writes:
> The basic run down: When I try to unload (using dlclose() ) a shared
> object that is linked to libguile after calling scm_init_guile() OR
> scm_with_guile(), a Segfault is triggered.
Hu! Well, so this is quite tricky. Loading Gu
On Sun 04 Oct 2015 16:36, taylanbayi...@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich
"Bayırlı/Kammer") writes:
> $ mkdir test
> $ echo '(include "test2.scm")' > test/test1.scm
> $ echo '(display "foo\n")' > test/test2.scm
> $ pwd
> /home/taylan
> $ export GUILE_LOAD_PATH=/home/taylan/test
> $ unset GUILE_LOAD_COMPIL
Hi Matt,
Thanks for the patch. My instinct however is to point you towards
SRFI-37, which in addition to supporting multiple argument values can
also be used to fold over the precise argument order. I just don't know
that we should be expanding (ice-9 getopt-long); it has its use case and
if you
El 24/06/16 a les 09:11, Andy Wingo ha escrit:
> On Tue 30 Jun 2015 15:50, Josep Portella Florit writes:
>
>> This code crashes Guile 2.0.11:
>>
>> (define x (make-dynamic-state))
>> (with-dynamic-state x (lambda () (/ 1 0)))
>
> Related: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel/16953
>
>
Fixed in master.
Cheers,
Andy
On Sat 19 Mar 2016 14:40, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis:
>
>> As of 2.0.11, we get this:
>>
>> scheme@(guile-user)> ,use(texinfo html)
>> scheme@(guile-user)> ,use(texinfo)
>> scheme@(guile-user)> (stexi->shtml (tex
Thanks for the pointer. I can work with SRFI-37. I am OK w/ rejection of the
patch. — Matt
> On Jun 24, 2016, at 7:53 AM, Andy Wingo wrote:
>
> Hi Matt,
>
> Thanks for the patch. My instinct however is to point you towards
> SRFI-37, which in addition to supporting multiple argument values
On Sat 31 Oct 2015 17:57, Rob Browning writes:
> $ guile
> GNU Guile 2.0.11
> Copyright (C) 1995-2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>
> Guile comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `,show w'.
> This program is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
> under certain con
Hello,
Andy Wingo skribis:
> Thanks for the patch. My instinct however is to point you towards
> SRFI-37, which in addition to supporting multiple argument values can
> also be used to fold over the precise argument order. I just don't know
> that we should be expanding (ice-9 getopt-long); it
On Sun 08 Nov 2015 11:23, writes:
> On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 01:58:48PM +0100, Atticus wrote:
>> So I wanted to try out gnu guix and thus make myself more familiar with
>> guile first. While running some tests I encountered a problem/bug with eq?:
>>
>> $ guile -v
>> guile (GNU Guile) 2.1.1
>>
>
On Sun 08 Nov 2015 18:16, Sergey writes:
> I attempt to build GNU Mailutis (current git) by gcc
> 5.2.1 but it is failed with
>
> ===
> cat mu_address.doc mu_body.doc mu_debug.doc mu_mailbox.doc mu_message.doc
> mu_mime.doc mu_logger.doc mu_port.doc mu_scm.doc mu_util.doc | \
> /usr/bi
Fixed in git; thanks :)
Andy
On Tue 10 Nov 2015 17:16, Andy Stormont writes:
> The patch below allows Guile to build on illumos, which does not have full
> support for the GNU locale extensions. For more information on what’s
> missing see here: https://www.illumos.org/issues/5346
>
> diff -
On Thu 12 Nov 2015 18:10, "Alexander Shendi" writes:
> I have built guile-2.1.1 on OpenBSD/amd64 5.8. I did the following:
>
> The build itself went smoothly and the system seems to work, but the
> generated "check-guile.log" shows
> 5 errors. I do not have enough guile-foo to deceide if the f
Hi Taylan,
On Thu 12 Nov 2015 16:29, taylanbayi...@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich
"Bayırlı/Kammer") writes:
> It seems that the 'monitor' form is currently a no-op. The form
>
> (par-for-each (lambda (x)
> (monitor
> (foo)))
> xs)
>
> sh
On Fri 13 Nov 2015 08:57, Zefram writes:
> With guile 2.0.11:
>
> scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (ice-9 control))
> scheme@(guile-user)> (list 'a (let/ec ae (list 'b (let/ec be (be 2)
> $1 = (a (b 2))
> scheme@(guile-user)> (list 'a (let/ec ae (list 'b (let/ec be (ae 2)
> $2 = (a (b 2)
On Fri 13 Nov 2015 04:31, Zefram writes:
> scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (ice-9 control))
> scheme@(guile-user)> (call/ec (lambda (c) (with-continuation-barrier (lambda
> () (c "through continuation"))) "c-w-b returned"))
> $1 = "through continuation"
>
> The continuation barrier works fine
On Fri 13 Nov 2015 00:27, Zefram writes:
> # Escape continuations are delimited continuations whose
> # only use is to make a non-local exit--i.e., to escape from the current
> # continuation. Such continuations are invoked only once, and for this
> # reason they are sometimes c
On Fri 24 Jun 2016 18:29, Andy Wingo writes:
> On Fri 13 Nov 2015 08:57, Zefram writes:
>
>> With guile 2.0.11:
>>
>> scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (ice-9 control))
>> scheme@(guile-user)> (list 'a (let/ec ae (list 'b (let/ec be (be 2)
>> $1 = (a (b 2))
>> scheme@(guile-user)> (list 'a (
Andy Wingo wrote:
> ,opt (let* ((x (list 'a))
> (y (list 'a)))
> (list x y))
> ;; ->
> (let* ((x (list 'a)) (y x)) (list x y))
Wow, that's a scary level of wrongitude. It's specific to let* (or
equivalent nested let forms), but really easy to trigger within that:
scheme@(
One more variant:
scheme@(guile-user)> (let ((x (list 'a))) (eq? x (list 'a)))
$1 = #t
scheme@(guile-user)> ,opt (let ((x (list 'a))) (eq? x (list 'a)))
$2 = (let ((x (list 'a))) (eq? x x))
-zefram
On Fri 24 Jun 2016 19:00, Zefram writes:
> Andy Wingo wrote:
>> ,opt (let* ((x (list 'a))
>> (y (list 'a)))
>> (list x y))
>> ;; ->
>> (let* ((x (list 'a)) (y x)) (list x y))
>
> Wow, that's a scary level of wrongitude.
Indeed :/
Fixed in git with this patch:
>From ea35
On Fri 24 Jun 2016 17:30, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Andy Wingo skribis:
>
>> Thanks for the patch. My instinct however is to point you towards
>> SRFI-37, which in addition to supporting multiple argument values can
>> also be used to fold over the precise argument order. I just
Greets,
Time is not my area of expertise :) Cc'ing guile-devel to see if
someone can review the ideas.
Would you like to propose a specific patch to the documentation? The
file is in doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi.
Regards,
Andy
On Fri 13 Nov 2015 13:58, Zefram writes:
> The manual says, in the
On Fri 11 Dec 2015 17:50, "Arnaud Gardelein" writes:
> Platform: cygwin / x86_64
> Attached config.log
>
> Error message:
> BOOTSTRAP GUILEC ice-9/psyntax-pp.go
> Uncaught exception:
> Throw to key system-error with args ("load-thunk-from-memory" "~A"
> ("Invalid argument") (22))Threads explici
Andy Wingo wrote:
>Would you like to propose a specific patch to the documentation?
Sure. Patch attached.
-zefram
--- a/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi 2014-03-20 20:21:21.0 +
+++ b/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi 2016-06-24 18:57:59.088243245 +0100
@@ -2461,8 +2461,8 @@
@cindex UTC
@cindex TA
> On Jun 24, 2016, at 8:30 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Andy Wingo skribis:
>
>> Thanks for the patch. My instinct however is to point you towards
>> SRFI-37, which in addition to supporting multiple argument values can
>> also be used to fold over the precise argument order. I
47 matches
Mail list logo
