On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Mark H Weaver skribis:
>
>> Unfortunately, preserving the macro keyword breaks one of Oleg
>> Kiselyov's macros, namely 'ppat' in system/base/pmatch.scm:
>
> [...]
>
>> Oleg's macro uses '_' in the keyword position of the pattern,
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Mark H Weaver skribis:
>
>> Unfortunately, preserving the macro keyword breaks one of Oleg
>> Kiselyov's macros, namely 'ppat' in system/base/pmatch.scm:
>
> [...]
>
>> Oleg's macro uses '_' in the keyword position of the pattern, even
>> though '_' is in
Hi,
FWIW, I think tabs are OK in C files, but not in Scheme files, because
in the latter case, we want to be able to copy/paste without triggering
tab completion.
Our .dir-locals.el follows that.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
Hi!
Mark H Weaver skribis:
> I vaguely recall hearing somewhere that this autogeneration of docs was
> considered a failed experiment, but we'd have to ask Andy or Ludovic
> about that.
Well, look at this section of the manual (especially on hard copy), and
compare it to hand-written sections..
Hi,
Mark H Weaver skribis:
> Unfortunately, preserving the macro keyword breaks one of Oleg
> Kiselyov's macros, namely 'ppat' in system/base/pmatch.scm:
[...]
> Oleg's macro uses '_' in the keyword position of the pattern, even
> though '_' is in the literals list. Therefore, it fails to mat
Hello!
Mark H Weaver skribis:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> As incredible as it may seem, ‘hash’ until now always returned 263 % n
>> for structs, leading to interesting experiences when using structs as
>> hash table keys.
>
> Yes, do you remember us talking about this long ago on
Unfortunately, preserving the macro keyword breaks one of Oleg
Kiselyov's macros, namely 'ppat' in system/base/pmatch.scm:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
(define-syntax ppat
(syntax-rules (_ quote unquote)
((_ v _ kt kf) kt)
((_ v () kt kf) (if (null? v
Daniel Hartwig writes:
> One final thing before I resubmit. I just notice that most of this
> file has uses hard tabs, though there are places with soft. Is it
> preferable to change the patch to also use hard tabs?
IMO, even when editing code that currently uses hard tabs, all new lines
should
