Andy Wingo wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On Tue 31 Mar 2009 12:44, Daniel Kraft writes:
as already discussed briefly with the Guile guys behind the new VM
thing, I got the idea to implement Emacs Lisp as supported language for
the Guile VM system.
This sounds great! I'd love to assist. As the fellow wh
> as already discussed briefly with the Guile guys behind the new VM thing,
> I got the idea to implement Emacs Lisp as supported language for the Guile
> VM system.
I won't have time to mentor it, but I'd like to point out some relevant
directions in Emacs's future: as some of you know, other tha
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hi Neil,
>
> Neil Jerram writes:
>
>> Should we then put the Makefile.am code back? Or does that break your
>> uninstalled usage? Other things being equal, I think it's more
>> important for the generated guile-config to be simple, than for our
>> Makefi
Speaking of which, should we mark `guile-config' as deprecated in favor
of `pkg-config' (in 1.9)?
I think so. An advantage of pkg-config, beyond the
not-rolling-your-own, is that pkgsrc has generic fixup support for -R,
and a separate fix for guile-config, and it would be nice to get rid of
Hello!
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Tue 31 Mar 2009 14:31, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
Besides, there's the thread about cross-compilation where we mention
building the compiler with an already installed Guile that may have an
inappropriate stack limit.
>>>
>>> I don't thi
Hi Neil,
Neil Jerram writes:
> Should we then put the Makefile.am code back? Or does that break your
> uninstalled usage? Other things being equal, I think it's more
> important for the generated guile-config to be simple, than for our
> Makefile.am to be simple.
Speaking of which, should we
