On 14 April 2011 01:23, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
> In general, there may be a need for a very good lisp virtual machine to
> run and integrate lisp code in general (CL, various schemes, and other
> sorts of lisp-like languages, we could include perhaps implementations
> of python, ruby, smal
Hello,
> I think we should first compare the virtual machines.
>
>
> If no obvious impossibility is observed, then perhaps modifying the
> compiler of clisp to generate guile VM code would be an easy path to
> obtain a CL implementation running on guile VM. (This would disable the
> interpreter i
> The beta rule is in denotational semantics something like
> ((lambda x . E_1) E_2) => [E_2/x]E_1, E_2 free for x in in E_1
> where [E_2/x]E_1 means substituting all free occurrences of x with E_2.
>
> In addition, one has the alpha rule
> (lambda x . E) => (lambda y . [y/x]E), y free for x in E
Noah Lavine writes:
> Hello Guile and Clisp developers,
>
> I'm writing to talk about vague big-picture ideas, but please bear
> with me for a minute, because I think this could be useful.
>
> I noticed in the recent GNU Summer of Code applications (I'm a mentor
> for Guile) that CLisp wants to b
Hello,
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> Andy Wingo writes:
>>
>>> No, the issue is elsewhere, that the thread-exit handlers were not being
>>> called
>>
>> I just tried with 60582b7c2a495957012f9a20cd8691dc6307a850 and
>> ‘on_thread_exit’ /is/ ca
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hi!
Howdy!
> Andy Wingo writes:
>
>> No, the issue is elsewhere, that the thread-exit handlers were not being
>> called
>
> I just tried with 60582b7c2a495957012f9a20cd8691dc6307a850 and
> ‘on_thread_exit’ /is/ called after something like
> ‘(call-with-n
Hey,
Andy Wingo writes:
> What should we do here? Here are a few options:
>
> 1) Require people to recompile all the time. Sucks.
>
> 2) Implement some sort of proper dependency management. Tricky,
> because installing a new version of package A could force a
> recompile of all
> From:Andy Wingo
>
> module/ice-9/boot-9.scm:118:20: In procedure module-lookup: Unbound
> variable: %uri?-procedure
FWIW, I got the same error while hacking one day. I couldn't track it down so
I did a make distclean and it went away. Glad to know that it wasn't just me.
-Mike
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Andy Wingo wrote:
>[...]
> >From Guile 1.6:
>[...]
> It did indeed happen to return #t on a normal termination, and have
> (break ARG). It has lots of other bugs though. I would prefer (break)
> to return zero values, and (while #f 1) as well, but that is
> incompatible with
On 13 Apr 2011, at 18:25, Andy Wingo wrote:
>>> Sorry, I don't know what you mean. References?
>>
>> There is an article here:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_binding_operator
>
> I still don't understand. What are you trying to do?
The beta rule is in denotational semantics somethin
On 13 Apr 2011, at 18:25, Noah Lavine wrote:
> I think that mechanism is all that Guile uses at present. However, it
> should be general enough to resolve all situations where variables of
> the same name refer to different entities, assuming you set up the
> environments correctly.
>
> Are you p
On Wed 13 Apr 2011 17:46, Hans Aberg writes:
>> Sorry, I don't know what you mean. References?
>
> There is an article here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_binding_operator
I still don't understand. What are you trying to do?
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
I think that mechanism is all that Guile uses at present. However, it
should be general enough to resolve all situations where variables of
the same name refer to different entities, assuming you set up the
environments correctly.
Are you planning on implementing a theorem prover for Guile? That w
I was doing some bisecting. I started at v2.0.0, did a full clean and
build then went to df1297956211b7353155c9b54d7e9c22d05ce493 and built
without a "clean". However I got an error:
GUILEC web/request.go
;;; note: source file /home/wingo/src/guile/module/web/uri.scm
;;; newe
Hi Mark,
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".
FWIW Hydra has had this problem in the GCC 3.x build job:
http://hydra.nixos.org/build/1043456
It first had the probl
Hi Mark,
> Since you don't want to continue this discussion on a theoretical basis,
> can you please provide a concrete example of how the addition of
> scm_exact_integer_sqrt might be a maintenance burden in the future,
> given that our public C interface already consists of approximately 2K
> fu
On 13 Apr 2011, at 17:27, Andy Wingo wrote:
What method is Guile using to avoid substitution variable clashes (de
Bruijn numbers, combinators, etc.)?
>>>
>>> Each lexical variable is given a fresh name (a gensym) when it is
>>> introduced. The expander keeps an environment as to what n
On Wed 13 Apr 2011 16:56, Wolfgang J Moeller writes:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Andy Wingo wrote:
>
>>[...]
>> > I'd like to "improve" (while) as currently provided by ice-9/boot.scm
>> >
>> > (a) to always have a well-defined result
>>
>> This is a good idea; it allows `while' to be an expression, n
Hi Detlev,
Detlev Zundel writes:
> Maybe it doesn't make sense to continue this discussion on a theoretical
> basis. Because on a theoretical basis I would probably cite the rule of
> modularity or even Antoine de Saint-Exupery:
>
> Perfection (in design) is achieved not when there is nothing
On Wed 13 Apr 2011 16:34, Hans Aberg writes:
> On 13 Apr 2011, at 16:19, Andy Wingo wrote:
>
>>> What method is Guile using to avoid substitution variable clashes (de
>>> Bruijn numbers, combinators, etc.)?
>>
>> Each lexical variable is given a fresh name (a gensym) when it is
>> introduced. T
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Andy Wingo wrote:
>[...]
> > I'd like to "improve" (while) as currently provided by ice-9/boot.scm
> >
> > (a) to always have a well-defined result
>
> This is a good idea; it allows `while' to be an expression, not just a
> statement.
>
> > (b) to allow for (break arg ...)
>
On 13 Apr 2011, at 16:19, Andy Wingo wrote:
>> What method is Guile using to avoid substitution variable clashes (de
>> Bruijn numbers, combinators, etc.)?
>
> Each lexical variable is given a fresh name (a gensym) when it is
> introduced. The expander keeps an environment as to what name maps t
On Wed 13 Apr 2011 14:57, Hans Aberg writes:
> What method is Guile using to avoid substitution variable clashes (de
> Bruijn numbers, combinators, etc.)?
Each lexical variable is given a fresh name (a gensym) when it is
introduced. The expander keeps an environment as to what name maps to
what
Hello Guile and Clisp developers,
I'm writing to talk about vague big-picture ideas, but please bear
with me for a minute, because I think this could be useful.
I noticed in the recent GNU Summer of Code applications (I'm a mentor
for Guile) that CLisp wants to become embeddable, and embed into E
What method is Guile using to avoid substitution variable clashes (de Bruijn
numbers, combinators, etc.)?
Hans
On Wed 13 Apr 2011 10:59, Detlev Zundel writes:
> But in the end maybe it is a question of whether one sees guile as a
> scheme interpreter with the possibility to interface easily with C or if
> one thinks of guile as a C library with a language built in. For me it
> is the first choice but you
Hi Wolfgang,
Another in a series of asynchronous replies :) Copying guile-devel for
comments on the extensions to `while'.
On Mon 04 Apr 2011 15:05, Wolfgang J Moeller writes:
> | GNU Guile 2.0.0
> | scheme@(guile-user)> (display (while #f 1))
> | :0:0: In procedure #:1:0
> ()>:
> | :0:0: Thr
Hans Aberg wrote:
> What is the practical difference between the two ways of doing the same thing
> (letrec or an environment). Is letrec more efficient in the implementation of
> Guile?
>
> Hans
>
>
> (letrec (
> (even? (lambda (n)
> (if (zero? n) #t (odd? (- n 1)
> (odd?
What is the practical difference between the two ways of doing the same thing
(letrec or an environment). Is letrec more efficient in the implementation of
Guile?
Hans
(letrec (
(even? (lambda (n)
(if (zero? n) #t (odd? (- n 1)
(odd? (lambda (n)
(if (zero? n) #f (even? (- n 1))
Hi Noah,
> 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.
Of course one can disagree, but then it immediately follows that there
is no "ideal for guile"
30 matches
Mail list logo
