Mikael Djurfeldt writes:
> The API you suggest would compose much easier, but to me it feels like
> just another specialized solution. What we would really need is
> something like Ludovic's guile-reader.
I agree that we should ideally have a much more general way of defining
customized readers.
Hi
It seems you are expecting some CLOS behaviour in a language that can
not support it. The accessors are generic functions, but each of your
modules creates a unique generic function, there is no implicit
namespace sharing in Scheme. Define a base module with an appropriate
superclass or inter
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Daniel Llorens
wrote:
>
> On Feb 18, 2013, at 16:55, Andy Wingo wrote:
>
> > It could make sense, yes. What do others think? What happens for
> > array-set!? Care to propose a patch?
>
> Patch is attached. It looks a bit unwieldy because I am duplicatin
Hello all,
given the following 4 modules, I am facing what I consider an
inconsistent goops behavior and have one problem which leads to my
recurrent request of goops default behavior should be to [a] always
create a generic function for accessors and methods that do not [yet]
have one, visible in
Dear guilers!
I have spend quite a lot of work porting racket code to guile
e.g. syntax-parse and the code for contracts, as a spinoff I have
done several other parts as well e.g.
* contracts(guile-contract)
* syntax parse (guile-syntax-
