Re: port-for-each vs lazy sweep

2007-08-26 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
Ludovic Courtès escreveu: > At any rate, that's certainly an improvement. I think this should go in > HEAD, but probably not in 1.8. Applied, with corrections. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen ___ Guile-deve

Re: port-for-each vs lazy sweep

2007-08-26 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ludovic Courtès escreveu: >>> @@ -472,6 +480,7 @@ scm_i_init_guile (SCM_STACKITEM *base) >>>scm_init_backtrace (); /* Requires fluids */ >>>scm_init_fports (); >>>scm_init_strports (); >>> + scm_init_ports (); >>>scm_init_gdbin

Re: port-for-each vs lazy sweep

2007-08-26 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
Ludovic Courtès escreveu: >> @@ -472,6 +480,7 @@ scm_i_init_guile (SCM_STACKITEM *base) >>scm_init_backtrace ();/* Requires fluids */ >>scm_init_fports (); >>scm_init_strports (); >> + scm_init_ports (); >>scm_init_gdbint (); /* Requires strports */ >>scm_init_has

Re: Improved (and faster) reader

2007-08-26 Thread Ludovic Courtès
¡Hola Andy! Andy Wingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat 25 Aug 2007 10:23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >>> By the way, what does that option actually do. The manual just says >>> "Copy source code expressions", which doesn't leave me any the wiser. >> >> This has to do with

Re: port-for-each vs lazy sweep

2007-08-26 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > @@ -472,6 +480,7 @@ scm_i_init_guile (SCM_STACKITEM *base) >scm_init_backtrace (); /* Requires fluids */ >scm_init_fports (); >scm_init_strports (); > + scm_init_ports (); >scm_init_gdbint (); /* Requires strports *