Hi,
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The setlocale call would be a good way. Maybe the charset tables
> could be reinitialized in scm_setlocale (when setting LC_ALL or
> LC_CTYPE). I suppose that'd be moderately helpful, and would make
> char-alphabetic? etc match how 1.6 worked.
In fa
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> At the moment, though, I don't why it blocks. I wonder if the parent
> left that mutex in an unexpected state when it forked.
Sound bizarre. Maybe hacking scm_i_pthread_mutex_init to force the
use of the "error checking" mutex attribute and then hacki
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Han-Wen Nienhuys) writes:
>
> guile> (format #f "~$" "02.4738")
> "24.74"
I found the bug, a one line fix in the stripping of leading zeros. It
now gives "2.4738".
--- format.scm.~1.25.4.1.~ 2006-02-21 09:15:27.0 +1100
+++ format.scm 2006-09-07 17:58:49.
I'm looking at moving some of log, log10, etc from boot-9.scm into
numbers.c. For log10 it means using the log10() func directly, and
for the others gives the chance to use the libc clog() etc.
--- numbers.c.~1.281.2.4.~ 2006-07-13 11:35:24.0 +1000
+++ numbers.c 2006-09-08 09:02:11
Since libmath exists probably most everywhere guile runs, does it make sense to build an extension wrapping selected contents of math.h and then use (load-extension ...) in boot-9?pat
On 9/7/06, Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm looking at moving some of log, log10, etc from boot-9.scm into
I'm looking at the addition below to allow ports to access 64-bit
files with the _LARGEFILE64 mechanism. New scm_t_ptob_descriptor
fields seek64 and truncate64 are off64_t versions of those operations.
They're used by fports, and can also by used by an application. The
plain seek and truncate fie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> In fact, I'm afraid we have a problem, because the `is' functions from
> are fully locale-dependent. Thus, they don't only depend on
> the charset being used but also on the language settings,
I'd be surprised if there was a problem in practice, yo
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sound bizarre. Maybe hacking scm_i_pthread_mutex_init to force the
> use of the "error checking" mutex attribute and then hacking
> scm_i_pthread_mutex_lock and scm_i_pthread_mutex_unlock to check the
> return and errno would show something. Dunno what th
