On Wed 22 Apr 2009 22:22, Julian Graham writes:
> Hi Andy,
>
>> Guile should probably only support one "live" version of a module. So
>> Guile's internal module namespace stays the same. Versions are only
>> important when loading files from disk. I propose that we do it like
>> this:
>
> Actuall
Hi Andy,
> Guile should probably only support one "live" version of a module. So
> Guile's internal module namespace stays the same. Versions are only
> important when loading files from disk. I propose that we do it like
> this:
Actually, I'd like to disagree here -- maybe I've been writing too
Hi,
Andreas Rottmann writes:
> Use this instead of #\foobar in the source text:
>
> (with-input-from-string "#\\foobar" read)
>
> This way, your source has legal syntax.
Yes, there are other examples of this in `readers.test'.
Thanks,
Ludo'.
>> Besides that, I don't think that phasing has any practical implication,
>> given the loopholes in the spec -- the set of bindings that a module
>> needs can be determined for *all* phases. That is to say, there is one
>> set of bindings that satisfies the needs of the spec for all phases of
>> e
Andy Wingo writes:
> But given that the non-normative Appendix F states:
[...]
> In particular, it is recommended that new versions of libraries
> that are conservative extensions of old ones differ only in the
> version, not in the name. Correspondingly, it is recommended that
>
Hello!
Mike Gran writes:
> On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 23:37 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> You seem to imply that `scm_getc ()' will now return a Unicode
>> codepoint, is that right? What about `scm_c_{read,write} ()', and
>> `scm_{get,put}s ()'?
>>
>
> I vacillate on this, but, I think the most
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Wed 22 Apr 2009 17:53, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> Perhaps we could create a branch so that you could experiment things?
>
> What would it have? Module versions?
Yes, to start with.
> We should probably take advantage
> of the occasion to separate the vari
Hi Julian!
On Wed 22 Apr 2009 20:32, Julian Graham writes:
> I have to confess, I'm totally at a loss as to how we're going to make
> versioning work with the autoload system.
>
> In particular, I see some difficulty in terms of determining whether
> to fully load and evaluate a module form duri
Hello Andy,
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Wed 22 Apr 2009 09:55, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> The main differences between these two module systems are module
>> versioning, and phase separation. Fortunately, R6RS' system is a
>> superset of Guile's, so we could extend the latter so tha
On Wed 22 Apr 2009 17:53, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Julian Graham writes:
>
>> Hey, if we're open to extending the module system, then sure -- that
>> would certainly make for a cleaner, more efficient implementation.
>> That's got my vote.
Mine too :)
> The trick is to extend it
Hi Ludovic,
On Wed 22 Apr 2009 09:55, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> That means, for instance, that module versioning could first be
> implemented in Guile's module system, which would then simply be used by
> the `library' form.
That probably makes sense, yes.
> The main differences
> Cool! ;-)
>
> The trick is to extend it in a backward-compatible way as much as
> possible. But now that we have hygiene and `use-syntax' has been
> sort-of phased out (Andy?), that should be doable.
>
> Perhaps we could create a branch so that you could experiment things?
*Urk* You didn't m
Hi Mike,
Mike Gran writes:
> commit 228caa60c037917afa448f6daa85df90c3f18848
> Author: Michael Gran
> Date: Wed Apr 22 08:31:12 2009 -0700
>
> Revert "Keep test dying when testing syntax errors"
>
> This reverts commit 4691549ded7a5b52d8d6838abe721887313b01bf.
>
> commit 4691549d
Hello,
Julian Graham writes:
> Hey, if we're open to extending the module system, then sure -- that
> would certainly make for a cleaner, more efficient implementation.
> That's got my vote.
Cool! ;-)
The trick is to extend it in a backward-compatible way as much as
possible. But now that we
On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 16:53 +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> Mike Gran writes:
> > (with-test-prefix "basic char handling"
> > (pass-if-exception "non-existent named character"
> > exception:read-error
> > #\foobar))
> >
> You have a syntax error in your source sc
Hi Ludovic,
> That means, for instance, that module versioning could first be
> implemented in Guile's module system, which would then simply be used by
> the `library' form.
>
> The main differences between these two module systems are module
> versioning, and phase separation. Fortunately, R6RS
Mike Gran writes:
> Hi-
>
> Here's a puzzle for you.
>
> I want to write a test for the test suite to catch a lexical syntax
> error, like the following non-existent named character. But I need to
> somehow introduce another layer of evaluation. In the following, Guile
> would tell me that my t
Hi-
Here's a puzzle for you.
I want to write a test for the test suite to catch a lexical syntax
error, like the following non-existent named character. But I need to
somehow introduce another layer of evaluation. In the following, Guile
would tell me that my test script has an error and then q
Hi Andy,
Andy Wingo writes:
> My intuition is that the Guile module `(foo)' should be representable as
> the R6RS module `(foo)', and vice versa.
+1.
>> 2. C name space
>>
>> C function/macro/variable names are all prefixed with `scm_r6rs_'.
>> Should it change to `scm_'?
>
> FWIW,
Hi Julian,
Julian Graham writes:
> On a related note, have you had a chance to review the R6RS library
> search mechanism I proposed a while back? [1] Using that algorithm
> (and going with the `ice-9' prefix), your modules could be wrapped
> such that:
>
> * There would exist a library wrapp
20 matches
Mail list logo
