Re: [PATCH] Per-module reader, take #3

Hi, Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Finally, although we might in theory be able to accommodate all > possible reading variants as configurable options to the default read, > in practice (i) this would be a pain for anyone wanting a variant that > hasn't yet been incorporated into Guile

Re: [PATCH] Fixing `gc-live-object-stats'

Hi, Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ludovic, if you can post the patch again, I'll commit it. Thanks Neil, I appreciate your involvement. Ludovic. 2005-11-17 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * gc-card.c (scm_i_card_statistics): Return if BITVEC is NULL. This wa

Re: [PATCH] Augmenting the doc of `define-module'

Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> doc/ref/ChangeLog >> >> 2005-11-07 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> * api-modules.texi (Using Guile Modules): Document SRFI-19 as an >> example usage of `#:replace'. >> >> >> sr

Re: What's the matter with "scm_string_p()"?

Bruce Korb wrote: Hi Guys, In trying to "upgrade" things and expunge the "gh_" interface, I tried to use "scm_string_p()" as a replacement for "gh_string_p()". you're looking for scm_is_string() -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

Re: No way out.

Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I should be getting stack traces on Scheme errors. I'm not. > (And, yes, I invoke either ``(backtrace)'' or ``scm_backtrace()'' > when a failure is detected.) I think I've been having trouble with backtraces not appearing too (just from plain

Re: What's the matter?

On Monday 05 December 2005 02:27 pm, you wrote: > Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > In particular, using "scm_makstr(_s, _ch)" causes faults, > > Looks like it ought to be ok. Post a failing example to guile-devel > if you like. Hi Kevin, It turns out that in all places where I was