Nala Ginrut writes:
> But I'm still puzzled with the performance of par-map:
> cut---
> scheme@(guile-user)> ,time (define a (map (lambda (x) (expt x 5)) (iota
> 1)))
> ;; 0.008019s real time, 0.007979s run time. 0.00s spent in GC.
> scheme@(guile-user
On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 18:12 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Nala Ginrut skribis:
>
> > scheme@(guile-user)> (par-map 1+ (iota 1))
> > While executing meta-command:
> > ERROR: Throw to key `vm-error' with args `(vm-run "VM: Stack
> > overflow" ())'.
>
> Commit 8a177d3 fixes this. I
Andy Wingo writes:
> Incidentally I think it would be a good idea to default to using named
> pipes. Not sure we can change that in 2.0, but having a locally open
> TCP port to a shell is a security risk if you run a web browser on that
> same machine:
On one hand, it wasn't documented, so you
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Court$(D+2(Bs) writes:
> I would add something like $B!H(BThe procedures of this module allow you to
> spawn a @dfn{REPL server}, which permits interaction over a local or TCP
> connection.$B!I(B
Added.
> Also, what about mentioning --listen, with a xref, as an example
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Noah Lavine wrote:
>
> Since it's definable with such a simple macro, I don't think it's
> appropriate for a SRFI.
>
>
Sorry, I just realized that that's not a sensible objection. If it's a
better interface than parameters, then it certainly should be a SRFI.
Howev
Hello,
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm, your really are right in the sense that the common ideom in
> computer language design is to type a variable at the declaration of
> the variable. So basically a user would then do something
I have tried to change the cocnpet to use parameters and put it into a
state where one could code it directly into scheme using parameters
and dynamic-wind. This way we can just write library code and argue for
a design. The previous spec seamed to worked but is not sound I would
say. So here is an
On Wed 27 Mar 2013 22:10, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Thanks for working on this!
Indeed.
Incidentally I think it would be a good idea to default to using named
pipes. Not sure we can change that in 2.0, but having a locally open
TCP port to a shell is a security risk if you run a
Sounds good to me, but can you also (1) add doc, probably under “Prompt
Primitives”, with cross-refs from the “Exceptions” section, and (2)
write a ChangeLog-style commit log?
Thanks,
Ludo’.
Hi Andy,
Thanks for the quick review. I agree with you on all points.
I'll work on a new patch that's more harmonious with master.
Regards,
Mark
Ian Price skribis:
> For now, I have currently placed it in a new subsection of 6.17 (Reading
> and Evaluating Scheme Code). I'm not entirely convinced this is the
> right place for it, better suggestions welcome.
Sounds good to me.
> For 2, I have described the optional in the text, rather tha
This looks great, thanks to both of you!
Ludo’.
Hi,
On Wed 27 Mar 2013 21:00, Mark H Weaver writes:
> index 8737a76..45e770d 100644
> --- a/libguile/ports.c
> +++ b/libguile/ports.c
> @@ -60,6 +60,8 @@
> #include "libguile/fluids.h"
> #include "libguile/eq.h"
>
> +#include "libguile/private-ports.h"
> +
> #ifdef HAVE_STRING_H
> #include
Hi!
Mark H Weaver skribis:
> Here's a patch to add a private port structure. I moved both input_cd
> and output_cd there. I plan to create more patches on top of this very
> soon (BOM handling, more efficient per-port read options, maybe better
> EOF handling), so a prompt review would be very
Mark H Weaver skribis:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Nala Ginrut skribis:
>>
>>> +(define (hash-keys table)
>>> + "Return all the keys from hash table."
>>> + (hash-map->list (lambda (x y) x) table))
>>
>> That doesn’t seem sufficiently common to warrant a new procedure. WDYT?
Hello all,
Here's a patch to add a private port structure. I moved both input_cd
and output_cd there. I plan to create more patches on top of this very
soon (BOM handling, more efficient per-port read options, maybe better
EOF handling), so a prompt review would be very helpful.
What do you thi
I went ahead and pushed this to stable-2.0. Thanks, cky! :)
Mark
On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 11:29:39 AM Noah Lavine wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
>
> stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Noha,
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Noah Lavine
> > >
> > wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 a
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Noha,
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Noah Lavine
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
> > wrote:
>
> I don't understand the difference. If I
Hi Noha,
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Noah Lavine wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Noah Lavine
>> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > Let me see if I understand the point of set! and set~. I think the goa
Hello,
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Noah Lavine
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Let me see if I understand the point of set! and set~. I think the goal
> is
> > to have a variable that is redo-safe, exc
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> > Nala Ginrut skribis:
> >
> >> +(define (hash-keys table)
> >> + "Return all the keys from hash table."
> >> + (hash-map->list (lambda (x y) x) table))
> >
> > That doesn’t seem sufficiently com
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Nala Ginrut skribis:
>
>> +(define (hash-keys table)
>> + "Return all the keys from hash table."
>> + (hash-map->list (lambda (x y) x) table))
>
> That doesn’t seem sufficiently common to warrant a new procedure. WDYT?
FWIW, I think it would be reasona
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Noah Lavine wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Let me see if I understand the point of set! and set~. I think the goal is
> to have a variable that is redo-safe, except that if someone uses set~ on
> it, then it is not redo-safe. Is that right?
No that would be hard to reason ab
Hello,
Let me see if I understand the point of set! and set~. I think the goal is
to have a variable that is redo-safe, except that if someone uses set~ on
it, then it is not redo-safe. Is that right?
If so, I think a variable like that is too hard to think about. I really
don't think they should
hi Daniel!
First, I'll appreciate your patience. ;-)
On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 16:55 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
> On 27 March 2013 14:32, Nala Ginrut wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 13:10 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
> >> On 27 March 2013 08:47, Nala Ginrut wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 在 2013-3-27 AM5:5
Hi!
Nala Ginrut skribis:
> Well, could you point me out how can I get the amount of items with
> hash-count in constant time?
You can’t, but Daniel is arguing that this should not be needed in the
first place, which makes sense to me.
> IMO, return the count of inner record is most explicit wa
On 27 March 2013 14:32, Nala Ginrut wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 13:10 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
>> On 27 March 2013 08:47, Nala Ginrut wrote:
>> >
>> > 在 2013-3-27 AM5:59，"Ludovic Courtès" 写道：
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Nala Ginrut skribis:
>> >>
>>
>> Hi now
>>
>> >> > * hash-items: get the am
On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 06:36:46 PM Noah Lavine wrote:
> Okay. I don't see a use for number 1. Could you explain why it's
> important? It seems easier to me to just let each variable have its
> own type.
Actually it has it's uses.
1.
Note. This ideom aims at being a sound extension to the case
29 matches
Mail list logo
