Hi,
(Moved to `guile-devel'.)
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You should hide it please. I think different equality test funcs are
> generally exposed only when they do something different from plain
> `equal?'. Like `list=' from srfi-1 that lets you do a shallow list
> compare.
This
| Rebuilding with --without-threads and GCC, the build errors out
| further with:
| gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I.. -I.. -I/opt/TWWfsw/libtool15/include
-I/opt/TWWfsw/libgmp42/include -g -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Werror -c
continuations.c -DPIC -o .libs/libguile_la-continuations.o
| con
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] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> This is untrue: consider for instance `string=?' and `char=?'.
Yes, you're right that Scheme isn't completely consistent here. But
records feel to me more like lists/vectors than chars/strings, so I
think you've made the right decision in your latest
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I vote for just fixing record-accessor to be strict by default;
>> i.e. treating current behaviour as a bug. I'd be surprised if anyone
>> was relying on this, and if they are it's easy to code a workaround
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
[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'
