Damien Mattei writes:
> I finished today the first version of Scheme+.
> Scheme+ is an extension of the syntax of the Scheme language.
> Scheme+ makes it easy the assignment of Scheme objects in infix (works also
> in prefix) notation with a few new operators ← (or <-), [ ],⥆ (or <+) .
>
> htt
Linus Björnstam schreef op ma 20-12-2021 om 09:15 [+0100]:
> I played around with it and it seems to rely heavily on mutation,
> which makes guile (and chez and racket for that matter) box the
> values. That adds a layer of indirection to memory access, meaning
> slower code (apart from the more ob
yes it is based on SRFI-105 as explained in section 7: Features.
The project is based on R6RS (R5RS too) and SRFI for compatibility.
Linus we had a discussion about bindings month ago and Scheme+ take in
account the impossibility in Scheme to have a single operator for defining
a variable anywhere
Hi Damien!
I played around with it and it seems to rely heavily on mutation, which makes
guile (and chez and racket for that matter) box the values. That adds a layer
of indirection to memory access, meaning slower code (apart from the more
obvious problems of continuation safety and threading
Oh well, I found the issue.
It was because of my special system. The printed representation of unify
variables
that point to a point to a point to a symbol got printed as a symbol. I
really need to tweak
the output to hint if it is a unify variable. And if wingo managed to
squeeze in tagging - so
Stefan Israelsson Tampe writes:
> Somewhere in the program I have,
>
> (pk x)
> (pk (caar l))
> (pk (equal? x (caar l)))
>
> It outputs
>
> ;;; (number)
>
> ;;; (number)
>
> ;;; (#f)
>
>
>
> #f is there more to this then meets the eye?
> /Stefan
Well...
scheme@(guile-user)> (equal? 'number
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:59, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
wrote:
> Somewhere in the program I have,
>
> (pk x)
> (pk (caar l))
> (pk (equal? x (caar l)))
>
> It outputs
>
> ;;; (number)
>
> ;;; (number)
>
> ;;; (#f)
>
>
>
> #f is there more to this then meets the eye?
You will get more signific
Hello,
> What tends to happen is that people that want to do this consider
> themselves Scheme programmers, first and foremost, and who do not
> identify themselves with one Scheme system; so they release their code
> on their own site, with info on using it with various systems, and send
> mails
Hi Noah,
On Sun 30 Jan 2011 17:08, Noah Lavine writes:
> My question is, what should I do to let other Scheme variants know
> this is happening and get them involved?
C.L.S, currently. It could be that there is a need for another forum,
but I don't know.
What tends to happen is that people th
On Sun 30 Jan 2011 16:48, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> The “R7RS” lists are accessible read-only via Gmane:
>
> http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.scheme.reports
I believe this one is available for anyone to post on. The other two
are moderated.
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
Hi,
>> I think several Schemes already have a dynamic FFI with a C parser.
>> Bigloo has one (info "(bigloo) Automatic extern clauses generation"),
>> and it’s GPL’d code, which we could reuse. Larceny has something too.
>
> Oh, great. Can Guile reuse GPL'd code, though, since it is LGPL?
We cou
Hello,
> I think several Schemes already have a dynamic FFI with a C parser.
> Bigloo has one (info "(bigloo) Automatic extern clauses generation"),
> and it’s GPL’d code, which we could reuse. Larceny has something too.
Oh, great. Can Guile reuse GPL'd code, though, since it is LGPL? I see
that
Hi Noah,
I think several Schemes already have a dynamic FFI with a C parser.
Bigloo has one (info "(bigloo) Automatic extern clauses generation"),
and it’s GPL’d code, which we could reuse. Larceny has something too.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
Hello all,
Thanks a lot for the points. Let me be more specific and see what you
think of this idea, and if there is a good forum for dealing with it.
I think that having a C parser will be a good feature for Guile,
because it will let us make C FFI connection automatic by parsing C
header files.
Hi!
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Sat 29 Jan 2011 23:54, Hans Aberg writes:
>
>> On 29 Jan 2011, at 21:53, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>
I think there should be a mailing list for people who implement
Schemes, to sort of coordinate our non-standard features. ...
>>
>>> I think comp.lang.scheme
On Sat 29 Jan 2011 23:54, Hans Aberg writes:
> On 29 Jan 2011, at 21:53, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>
>>> I think there should be a mailing list for people who implement
>>> Schemes, to sort of coordinate our non-standard features. ...
>
>> I think comp.lang.scheme is already a good place for this.
() Noah Lavine
() Sat, 29 Jan 2011 16:23:39 -0500
a lot less coordination among Schemes
right now than there should be
Scheme is a fun platform for experimentation,
which is sometimes at odds w/ coordination.
Personally, i wouldn't sweat it overmuch.
On 29 Jan 2011, at 21:53, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
I think there should be a mailing list for people who implement
Schemes, to sort of coordinate our non-standard features. ...
I think comp.lang.scheme is already a good place for this. You
quickly
get feedback and many implementors seem to p
Hello,
> I think comp.lang.scheme is already a good place for this. You quickly
> get feedback and many implementors seem to participate in it.
Oh, great. I didn't know about that.
Although I must say, it seems like there is a lot less coordination
among Schemes right now than there should be.
Hi Noah,
Noah Lavine writes:
> I think there should be a mailing list for people who implement
> Schemes, to sort of coordinate our non-standard features. For
> instance, you could email the list and say "hey, Guile is thinking of
> adding a unicode library with this interface. Does anyone else
On Sat 02 Oct 2010 00:55, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Another option would be to keep the prompt but use a simpler one in the
> manual, as is often done with shell transcripts.
I think I prefer this option, for now. I'll do this the next time our
prompt bothers me in the manual :)
A
Hello!
Andy Wingo writes:
> I'm thinking that our prompt is really ugly. Sure, it's useful to know
> what language and module you're in (though you probably know the
> language). But I was just going over some docs and the prompt really
> makes it hard to read. The interaction transcript went li
Hi,
2009/3/2 Mitchell Wand :
> I am pleased to officially announce the results of the election for the
> Scheme Language Steering Committee.
Thanks to all who voted. I'm not familiar with the work
of the steering committee, and so abstained; however,
as a scheme user, I am very concerned about i
Hi,
I'm just now getting around to taking care of this oldie.
On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 18:06 +0300, Marius Vollmer wrote:
> Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > (See
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-gtk-general/2006-06/msg00013.html
> > if you didn't see the whole description on gu
Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> Guile wants you to integrate your objects with its mark/sweep
>>> approach, by providing appropriate smob marking functions, for
>>> example.
>>
>> If I've understood correctly, this isn't possible in Gregor
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Guile wants you to integrate your objects with its mark/sweep
>> approach, by providing appropriate smob marking functions, for
>> example.
>
> If I've understood correctly, this isn't possible in Gregory's
> scenario.
>
> (See
> http://lists.gnu.org/arch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Han-Wen Nienhuys) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>If I've understood correctly, this isn't possible in Gregory's
>>scenario.
>>
>>(See
>>http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-gtk-general/2006-06/msg00013.html
>>if you didn'
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If I've understood correctly, this isn't possible in Gregory's
>scenario.
>
>(See
>http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-gtk-general/2006-06/msg00013.html
>if you didn't see the whole description on guile-gtk-general already
Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Han-Wen Nienhuys) writes:
>
>> No, MV thinks it's a bad idea, and I agree with him.
>>
>> See
>>
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel/4117/focus=4160
>
> Yep, and let me elaborate a bit:
>
> The pair scm_gc_protect_ob
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Han-Wen Nienhuys) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>[...]
>>It seems to me, though, that the same kind of situation, leading to
>>wanting to call scm_gc_unprotect_object during GC, is likely to arise
>>in any sufficiently com
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> guile-gnome (up to v. 2.7.98, most recent as of this writing) can
>> call scm_gc_unprotect_object() during a scheme garbage collector
>> sweep, which is a fatal error in guile-1.8. In earlier versions
>> of guile, it is not
[added crosspost to guile-devel]
"gregory benison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> guile-gnome (up to v. 2.7.98, most recent as of this writing) can
> call scm_gc_unprotect_object() during a scheme garbage collector
> sweep, which is a fatal error in guile-1.8. In earlier versions
> of guile, it i
32 matches
Mail list logo
