Julian Graham skribis:
> From 16ef2df6cc206f829c3aff96b1b315ed6fb50c05 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Julian Graham
> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 08:39:43 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] Fix tree-il code generation for ECMAscript `new' expression.
>
> The compiler was producing `((
So, uh... can one of the maintainers apply my patch? (Andy / Ludo / Mark?)
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Wilfred Hughes wrote:
> Excellent :)
>
> I'm afraid I can't help you further, but it's great to see the
> ecmascript frontend get some attention. The lack of ASI is the bug
> that I notice
Excellent :)
I'm afraid I can't help you further, but it's great to see the
ecmascript frontend get some attention. The lack of ASI is the bug
that I notice the most, but there's definitely low hanging fruit.
Wilfred
On 20 September 2016 at 10:26, Julian Graham wrote:
> Hi Wilfred,
>
> Yep! The
Hi Wilfred,
Yep! The FSF should have my assignment on file.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Wilfred Hughes wrote:
> Looks good to me (even tests)! Have you assigned copyright papers for Guile?
>
> On 13 September 2016 at 08:42, Julian Graham wrote:
>> Hi Guilers,
>>
>> Noticed that ECMAscri
Looks good to me (even tests)! Have you assigned copyright papers for Guile?
On 13 September 2016 at 08:42, Julian Graham wrote:
> Hi Guilers,
>
> Noticed that ECMAscript "new" syntax seemed to be broken. Here's a
> patch that fixes it. I'd like to make some incremental improvements in
> Guile's
829c3aff96b1b315ed6fb50c05 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Julian Graham
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 08:39:43 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Fix tree-il code generation for ECMAscript `new' expression.
The compiler was producing `((toplevel foo))' instead of `(toplevel foo)'.
Changed to
