Hi,
On Fri 22 Aug 2008 12:23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Besides, do you have an automatic compilation approach in mind (à la
> Python) or something explicit, possibly with source/binary time-stamp
> comparison?
I don't know really. Currently it's explicit. But automatic could
Hello!
Andy Wingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The `vm' branch in the guile repo is coming along nicely. It fully
> self-compiles, passes test suites, has a really useful repl, etc etc.
> There are some problems with call/cc that will be fixed in the future,
> but it's mostly correct.
Thanks fo
Hi,
Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm always for faster release cycles, but wouldn't it be good to push out
> 1.10 now, and merge the VM (which is a large change) afterwards?
I think there are still a lot of small, incremental improvements to be
made in 1.8. That is admittedly
Andy Wingo escreveu:
> Let me know if you have thoughts about this plan! My hope would be that
> once there are no or very few and solvable regressions, we could merge
> this to master and call it 1.10 or 2.0.
I'm always for faster release cycles, but wouldn't it be good to push out
1.10 now, and
