Mike Gran writes:
> You could try having EMACS re-indent the whole buffer to see if you
> slipped a paren.
What's wrong with M-x check-parens RET ?
--
David Kastrup
> From: Bruce Korb
>> unknown location: definition in expression context in subform optname-from
> of "_^"
>> Scheme evaluation error. AutoGen ABEND-ing in template
>> /old-home/ROOT/usr/local/share/autogen/aginfo.tpl on line 163
>> Failing Guile command: = = = = =
>>
>> (define
Hi,
Say, what??? I don't understand.
ice-9/psyntax.scm:866:30: In procedure dobody:
ice-9/psyntax.scm:866:30: Syntax error:
unknown location: definition in expression context in subform optname-from of
"_^"
Scheme evaluation error. AutoGen ABEND-ing in template
/old-home/ROOT/usr/loc
Hi,
I'd like to clarify one point here.
On Mon 23 Jan 2012 13:52, Andy Wingo writes:
> If we want to change the format of , we have two
> more compelling options. One would be to make a compatible change,
> but that's not always possible.
An example of a compatible change would be adding a fi
Hi,
Commit 60273407f92fdfe36c3ec09decfd92746bbb4f5e augments ‘-Wformat’ to
warn about format specifies not supported by ‘simple-format’, the
default ‘format’ core binding.
The nasty thing is that (ice-9 format) set!s the core ‘format’, so
often, but not always, things work as though you had impor
On Wed 25 Jan 2012 21:41, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> What about calling it ‘current-file-name’ instead?
>> We can still change it if it's the right thing, but we would probably
>> need to do the same with the other interfaces (with the deprecation
>> dance).
>
> Right. Or w
Hi,
Andy Wingo skribis:
> On Wed 25 Jan 2012 13:42, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Andy Wingo skribis:
>>
What about calling it ‘current-file-name’ instead?
>>>
>>> > (apropos "filename")
>>> (guile): set-module-filename! #>> ice-9/boot-9.scm:1712:2 (module val)>
>>>
I got it working with an old version of guile but have problem with newest
stable-2.0
I'll expand a macro #'(pk (syntax z)) and when evaluating this I get
(#(syntax-object z ((m~TFEL$Gaj1u5PPt2i@IPCm top)
#(ribcage () () ())
#(ribcage () () ())
#(ribcage () () ())
#(ribcage #(#{ g~TFEL$Gaj1u5PPt
I have nothing new to say here, so I'll spare you all my increasingly
frustrated repetitions. I need to walk away for a while. Do what you
feel is best. Good luck.
Mark
On Wed 25 Jan 2012 13:42, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Andy Wingo skribis:
>
>>> What about calling it ‘current-file-name’ instead?
>>
>> > (apropos "filename")
>> (guile): set-module-filename! #> ice-9/boot-9.scm:1712:2 (module val)>
>> (guile): module-filename #> (modul
On Wed 25 Jan 2012 14:21, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Mark H Weaver skribis:
>
>> How would you like to fix this? Would you like me to make a new
>> procedure that creates a universally-unique string? Most of `gensym's
>> current code would be moved to that new procedure, and then
Mark H Weaver writes:
> Andy Wingo writes:
>
>> On Tue 24 Jan 2012 15:01, Mark H Weaver writes:
>>
>>> `local-eval' combines syntax objects from two different sessions into a
>>> single syntax object (in the wrapper procedure), and thus there may be
>>> label name collisions. Now, if this comb
Hello,
Mark H Weaver skribis:
> How would you like to fix this? Would you like me to make a new
> procedure that creates a universally-unique string? Most of `gensym's
> current code would be moved to that new procedure, and then `gensym'
> would use it.
Would (symbol->string (gensym)) work?
Hello Happy Guilers! :-)
Sorry for remaining silent in this heated thread (I spent my spare time
on other practical issues for 2.0.4, and felt I lacked the competence.)
My overall feeling is that providing a 1.8-compatible ‘local-eval’ in
2.0 is great, but that it’s essentially one bug to be fix
Hi,
Andy Wingo skribis:
>> What about calling it ‘current-file-name’ instead?
>
> > (apropos "filename")
> (guile): set-module-filename! # ice-9/boot-9.scm:1712:2 (module val)>
> (guile): module-filename# (module)>
> (guile): current-filename
> (guile): set-port-filename! #
>
Hello Mark,
On Wed 25 Jan 2012 03:30, Mark H Weaver writes:
>> Perhaps, though, at this point we're just going to have to agree to
>> disagree;
>
> This is a euphemism for "sorry, but we're doing it my way".
Just a few days ago, you said:
On Sun 22 Jan 2012 13:23, Mark H Weaver writes:
> If
On Wed 25 Jan 2012 01:26, Mark H Weaver writes:
> Andy Wingo writes:
>
>> (define-syntax-rule (define-const x val)
>> (begin
>> (define t val)
>> (define-syntax x (identifier-syntax t
>>
>> Here, `t' will have a fresh mark.
>>
>> Now, if in one compilation unit, I do:
>>
>>
17 matches
Mail list logo
