Re: pass at srfi-89 implementation

Hi Julian, "Julian Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Okay, I've tried -- at length. And so far I haven't been able to top > the performance of the reference implementation. In fact, it actually > seems to be fairly efficient Did you run some sort of "benchmark"? > From what I can see, the

Re: catching scm_without_guile badness

Hi Guilers! "Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 2008/7/31 Andy Wingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Hi, >> >> I just spent a couple days tracking down a bug in my code that was due >> to calling scm_without_guile when I wasn't actually in Guile. This >> exhibited itself as a deadlock at some poi

Re: request reversion regarding scm_i_* removal

Hi, Andy Wingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The removal of the scm_i_* functions is an ABI break in the stable 1.8 > series. It should be reverted. (It's a great fix for master though.) The "i" always stood for "internal", but let's see what can be done... ;-) Assuming the above, one could say