On Sat 09 Apr 2011 21:35, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> If we wish for libguile to be attractive for use by projects
>> primarily written in C, we ought to extinguish this unfortunate
>> recent tendency to say "people ought to be writing Scheme not C", and
>> we ought to stop using tha
On Thu 07 Apr 2011 00:24, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> Updated patch attached, is it OK to push this way?
>
> Yes, please go ahead!
FWIW:
Running r6rs-arithmetic-flonums.test
ERROR: r6rs-arithmetic-flonums.test: fixnum->flonum: simple - arguments:
((wrong-type-arg #f "Wrong type to
Hello!
Andy Wingo writes:
> Running r6rs-arithmetic-flonums.test
> ERROR: r6rs-arithmetic-flonums.test: fixnum->flonum: simple - arguments:
> ((wrong-type-arg #f "Wrong type to apply: ~S" (#)
> (#)))
>
> In practice this means that anyone that compiled something that uses
> fixnum? against Gui
Hi Neil,
Sorry for the late reply.
Neil Jerram writes:
>> Neil Jerram writes:
>>
>>> I think I've successfully cross-compiled Guile (stable-2.0, e309f3bf9e)
>>> for my Freerunner phone. However, when I run it, it just keeps
>>> allocating memory until the OOM killer kills it:
>>
>> How much R
Heya :)
On Mon 11 Apr 2011 22:01, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> I don't know if this is important, as R6RS users probably have lots of
>> other carnage to deal with, but it is strictly an ABI break.
>
> Well well, they’ll need to recompile. My feeling is that it’s
> acceptable, but I
Andy Wingo writes:
> Heya :)
>
> On Mon 11 Apr 2011 22:01, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>>> I don't know if this is important, as R6RS users probably have lots of
>>> other carnage to deal with, but it is strictly an ABI break.
>>
>> Well well, they’ll need to recompile. My feeling i
On Thu 07 Apr 2011 16:37, Noah Lavine writes:
> So I guess the question is, is it worthwhile for us to fix GCC so it
> can handle tail calls, or should we use another code generation
> library that already deals with them? I must admit I still really like
> the idea of using GCC, because it has a
On Sat 09 Apr 2011 07:05, Mark H Weaver writes:
> Sometime between 2.0.0 and current stable-2.0, after-gc-hook has been
> broken on my system: "FAIL: gc.test: gc: after-gc-hook gets called".
>
> Both 2.0.0 and current stable-2.0 are built and linked with bdwgc
> 7.2alpha from CVS, circa 2011-03-2
You make good points, but I disagree. I think the ideal for Guile
should be a situation where C and Scheme can be used basically
interchangeably, with Guile providing the glue in between.
A situation like that would certainly lead people to write as much as
possible in Scheme, because if C and Sch
On Sun 10 Apr 2011 00:09, Mark H Weaver writes:
> postmas...@stelco.com.mv writes:
>> This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.
>>
>> Delivery to the following recipients failed.
>>
>>shi...@stelco.com.mv
>
> Can one of the guile-devel administrators please disable
Hello,
> Regarding GCC, I have spoken to GCC folk, and they are not averse to
> making GCC into a more modular thing. There are obvious licensing
> concerns, but these are surmountable: Guile and GCC could work together
> somehow. The problem, as I understood it last year, was that GCC
> doesn't
Hi,
>> I have added you to the gitorious repo. Feel free to push your patches
>> there :-)
>
> Hey thanks! Still I'd welcome if you at least look over my changes and
> give me some hints if you see room for improvements - most of what I did
> in scheme in the past was in scsh ;)
>
> As I said in
Hi Mark,
[...]
> Sometimes there's no good reason to use C, but it's simply due to a
> developer's personal preference. Maybe they don't have much experience
> writing Scheme and are much more comfortable in C. Maybe they already
> had this big pile of C code before they learned to love Scheme.
13 matches
Mail list logo
