Ken Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the thing that makes this case tricky is the Guile library.
You may have already been thinking of these, but in case not, it's
also any other libraries provided by Guile (srfi 13/14) or by any
external modules, and while the Guile library has to b
Mikael Djurfeldt wrote:
> On 6/12/05, Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Can I just check that you're not misunderstanding me?
>
>
> I did. You wrote that you would remove ice-9/debugger/*, so I thought
> you would, for example, remove
> guile-core/ice-9/debugger/command-loop.scm which i
On 6/12/05, Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can I just check that you're not misunderstanding me?
I did. You wrote that you would remove ice-9/debugger/*, so I thought
you would, for example, remove
guile-core/ice-9/debugger/command-loop.scm which is part of what
happens when you type (de
Mikael Djurfeldt wrote:
>
> I think that, from the point of view of the user, debugging tools are
> very central.
Can I just check that you're not misunderstanding me? I am not at all
suggesting the removal of any of the core infrastructure that was there
before I started playing with things, or
On 6/12/05, Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would anyone object if I deleted my work on breakpoints and
> debugging-in-Emacs from CVS head? To be precise, this means deleting:
>
> guile-core/emacs/README.GDS
> guile-core/emacs/gds*
> ice-9/debugger/*
>
> and backing out some associated
Neil Jerram wrote:
>
> Yes, I'll have a go.
How about the attached? The scm_reverse_x is annoying, but removing it
would require
- either modifying transform_bindings etc. so as not to reverse things
in the first place, or so as to reverse the init vars in the same way as
the init forms
- or c
Would anyone object if I deleted my work on breakpoints and
debugging-in-Emacs from CVS head? To be precise, this means deleting:
guile-core/emacs/README.GDS
guile-core/emacs/gds*
ice-9/debugger/*
and backing out some associated changes to ice-9/debugger.scm (+ NEWS,
Makefile.am etc).
The reaso
Marius Vollmer wrote:
> Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>Cunning, isn't it? It passes the test because a continuation captured
>>during an ecache_evalx call will preserve the values on the stack, and
>>because the values on the stack are not affected by set!s on the letrec
>>environ
