Howdy :)
On Mon 21 Jan 2013 19:09, Mikael Djurfeldt writes:
> Now, I'm looking into porting Gerald Sussman's scmutils to Guile-2.0.
> I'm aware of an older port by Daniel Gildea but I don't think that
> uses GOOPS:
Neat; GOOPS is definitely the way to go there ;-)
> I'm currently wondering if
Hi Andy,
No problem at all! In fact, apologies are entirely on my side: I
thought I would get time to hack on this before and during Christmas,
but this turned out not to be true.
Great that you fixed it! If I have anything to add, I will of course
bring that up.
Now, I'm looking into porting
Hello Mikael,
A pleasure to see you around!
On Mon 22 Oct 2012 01:11, Mikael Djurfeldt writes:
> When trying to use guile 2 for logic programming I discovered that the
> slib interface is again broken (and has been for quite some time).
I am very sorry that I did not see this thread before hac
Mikael Djurfeldt writes:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>> Anyway, here's another idea: after requiring a new slib package, iterate
>> over the entire list of top-level bindings in the slib module and export
>> everything.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> I think it sounds li
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> Anyway, here's another idea: after requiring a new slib package, iterate
> over the entire list of top-level bindings in the slib module and export
> everything.
>
> What do you think?
I think it sounds like the best idea so far. I'll try t
Hi Mikael,
Mikael Djurfeldt writes:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>> It might be easier to handle this with 'define-syntax-parameter' and
>> 'syntax-parameterize'. The idea would be that within slib, 'define'
>> would be a syntax parameter. Its default expansion woul
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> It looks to me like your current implementation of 'syntax-toplevel?'
> is actually testing for a top-level _syntactic_ environment, but what
> you ought to be testing for here is slightly different.
You are absolutely right. Thank you for
Hi Mikael!
It's great to see you on guile-devel again, and it would be good to have
a working slib on Guile 2. Thanks for working on this :)
Mikael Djurfeldt writes:
> Comments? Can I add syntax-toplevel? to psyntax.scm and (system
> syntax)?
FWIW, it sounds reasonable to add something like '
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Mikael Djurfeldt wrote:
> Comments? Can I add syntax-toplevel? to psyntax.scm and (system
> syntax)? Do you think it is reasonable to submit something along the
> line of guile.init.diff to slib guile.init?
If I get an OK, then I would of course put some further
Yes in that case this stands on it's own!
/Stefan
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Mikael Djurfeldt wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
> wrote:
> >> Comments? Can I add syntax-toplevel? to psyntax.scm and (system
> >> syntax)?
> > [...]
> > I can answer with some
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
wrote:
>> Comments? Can I add syntax-toplevel? to psyntax.scm and (system
>> syntax)?
> [...]
> I can answer with some kind of suggestion here.
>
> in (system syntax) there is syntax-local-binding which you can use for
> example as
>
>
> (d
Hi Mikael and welcome back!
*But*, the proper implementation of syntax-toplevel? requires
> modification of psyntax.scm and adding it to the (system syntax)
> module. I didn't want to do this until I've had your comments, so the
> present patch has its own syntax-object accessors (which breaks
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
