On Thu 06 Aug 2009 20:34, Daniel Kraft writes:
> the last days, I worked on a rewrite of the Guile Tutorial (with the
> Tortoise package); just for fun, but also to update some stuff to my
> liking and last but not least change the API usage from the deprecated
> GH routines to the current scm_ o
Heya,
On Sat 08 Aug 2009 23:52, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Andy Wingo writes:
>
>> Perhaps the deal is that 1+ is not being inlined. It seems to be calling
>> out to the 1+ procedure, which is a primitive, actually making it a
>> bit slower. I'll see what I can do.
>
> Currently, i
Hello Ludovic :)
On Sun 09 Aug 2009 18:41, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Andy Wingo writes:
>
>> The second model is when you already have a wide deployed base. You can
>> make additions to your API and ABI, and deprecated old API or ABI, but
>> you can't remove old API or change the
Hi,
On Sun 09 Aug 2009 22:24, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> A recent thread on `guile-user' [0] raises an important concern: what
> should we do with `guile-1.8.pc' when 2.x is out?
IMO, guile-1.8.pc is only provided by the guile-1.8 package. 1.8 and 2.0
are parallel-installable. Tech
Hi Ken,
On Thu 06 Aug 2009 18:30, Ken Raeburn writes:
> On Aug 5, 2009, at 10:06, I wrote:
>> (3) My four-year-old comments on scm_enter/leave_guile, recorded in
>> threads.c around line 300, still stand Those functions really
>> ought to go away. At least they're confined to one file, now
Hi Mike!
"Michael Gran" writes:
> commit ca2858c6ba827675af1e348b740b868abc1fdc8d
> Author: Michael Gran
> Date: Wed Aug 12 07:49:16 2009 -0700
>
> Don't include libunistring headers in Guile public headers
>
> This requres the creation of a new type
> scm_t_string_failed_con
Hi-
I hope that master is closer to building cleanly today w.r.t. strings.
- Added a cast in SCM_MAKE_CHAR. If that doesn't work, then maybe
SCM_MAKE_CHAR should become an inline function.
- Removed some signed/unsigned comparisons and conversions
- Applied Greg Troxel's patch to cast all input
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> My conclusion so far is that "(void *)0" is a legal value for NULL
>
> Whether "legal" or not, under-parenthesized expression-like macros are
> likely to cause troubles one day or another.
>
> Thanks for your work with the upstream people!
I now have a p
Hello!
Greg Troxel writes:
> My conclusion so far is that "(void *)0" is a legal value for NULL
Whether "legal" or not, under-parenthesized expression-like macros are
likely to cause troubles one day or another.
Thanks for your work with the upstream people!
Ludo'.
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2009/08/thread1.html#002545
http://savannah.gnu.org/support/?106973
My conclusion so far is that "(void *)0" is a legal value for NULL (even
given as an example in POSIX 2008 glossary), and that just because an
expression E evaluates to an integer cons
10 matches
Mail list logo
