Re: 1.6.8 release candidate 0 available for testing.

Hi, Greg Troxel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sorry you are quite right, I should have said GNU libc (is that used > on other than Linux and HURD these days?). Sure it is: GNU/kFreeBSD[0] and even... GNU/NetBSD[1]. I know there has been significant work on the former, don't know about the latt

Re: [PATCH] Per-module reader, take #2

Hi Neil, Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't think it should be connected with modules, though. In my > view: > > - modules should be about identifier access and visibility (including > issues such as possible separate compilation in future), and nothing > else (and yes, this

Re: [PATCH] Per-module reader, take #2

Hi, Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think that may be possible already using current-load-port. > Something like > > (define-module (foo bar) > ...) > (my-zany-reader) > > where `my-zany-reader' reads and parses from current-load-port and > does whatever with the re

[PATCH] `any' and `every' in `(oop goops util)'

Hi, The `(oop goops util)' module currently exports its own version of `any' and `every', which is unnecessary and causes warnings to be issued when `(srfi srfi-1)' is being used. The patch below fixes this. Thanks, Ludovic. 2005-10-20 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * oop/goops

Re: [PATCH] Per-module reader, take #2

On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 09:48:50AM +0200, Ludovic Court?s wrote: > Hi Neil, > > Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I don't think it should be connected with modules, though. In my > > view: > > > > - modules should be about identifier access and visibility (including > > issues such

[PATCH] SRFI-34, SRFI-60 and core bindings

Hi, The patch below fixes SRFI-34 and SRFI-60 so that they don't override core bindings. The nice side-effect is that it suppresses annoying warning messages. Thanks, Ludovic. 2005-10-20 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * srfi/srfi-34.scm: Don't export `raise', replace it instead

Re: [PATCH] Per-module reader, take #2

Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tomas Zerolo) writes: > But don't we loose the possibility then to have ``embedded goo´´ (say, > for example, something like a snippet of SQL in an otherwise Scheme > file)? This would be, I think, one of the nifty uses for pluggable > readers... [It looks like something

Re: [PATCH] Per-module reader, take #2

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > > And what exactly would happen to > `primitive-load' (which is the one that triggered the call to > `my-zany-reader') when `my-zany-reader' returns? It sees eof, and stops. Or it sees the rest of the file if the new reader only takes an inlined middl

Re: [PATCH] SRFI-34, SRFI-60 and core bindings

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > > + #:replace (bit-count)) I don't really want to silently replace the core bit-count, the srfi-60 one is completely different. It's pretty annoying to get a warning or have to use #:renamer, but I don't know a better way. (Incidentally, `current-ti

Re: [PATCH] `any' and `every' in `(oop goops util)'

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > > Hi, > > The `(oop goops util)' module currently exports its own version of `any' and > `every', which is unnecessary and causes warnings to be issued when > `(srfi srfi-1)' is being used. When using (oop goops) ? I'm not sure (oop goops util) is mea

Re: [PATCH] Per-module reader, take #2

Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: >> >> And what exactly would happen to >> `primitive-load' (which is the one that triggered the call to >> `my-zany-reader') when `my-zany-reader' returns? > > It sees eof, and stops. Or it sees the rest of the f

Re: [PATCH] Per-module reader, take #2

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Hi Neil, > > Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> 1. A way to say "change the reader to XXX for the rest of this file". > > I believe `set-current-reader' (introduced in the second patch) can do > this job pretty well. What do you think? Yes