Hi,
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>
>> +++ mod/libguile/posix.c
>>...
>> +#ifndef USE_GNU_LOCALE_API
>> + scm_i_pthread_mutex_lock (&scm_i_locale_mutex);
>> +#endif
>>rv = setlocale (scm_i_to_lc_category (category, 1), clocale);
>> +#
Hi,
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about having make-locale take the existing LC_MESSAGES etc. I'm
> thinking either a single LC value, or a list of them for multiple
> categories.
I considered this option at some point but then thought lists were a too
high-level construct. ;-)
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>
>> +/* Throw an exception corresponding to error ERR. */
>> +static void inline
>> +scm_locale_error (const char *func_name, int err)
>> +{
>> + SCM s_err;
>> +
>> + s_err = scm_from_int (err);
>> + scm_err
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>
>> So, do you think we should rename them to `strto{d,l}' or documenting
>> this dependence is enough?
>
> Number parsing on the whole always seems very application-specific to
> me. I don't think I've ever se
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> That's on a system where `USE_GNU_LOCALE_API' is not defined, right?
Yes, faked out.
> In order to detect locale unavailability upon locale create on non-GNU
> systems, it would have to try to actually install the locale first. I
> guess we can do
I checked in the text below.
5.8.3.2 let-keywords Reference
..
`let-keywords' and `let-keywords*' extract values from keyword style
argument lists, binding local variables to those values or to defaults.
-- library syntax: let-keywords args allow-other-keys? (bindi
Is there a reason scm_raise is implemented using kill() instead of
raise()?
I suppose raise() is a C89-ism, but nowadays it can be used
unconditionally can't it? (And in fact for instance mingw has raise
but not kill.)
___
Guile-devel mailing list
Gui
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> Quoting SRFI-0:
>
> Another issue is the binding time of this construct (i.e. the moment
> when it operates). It is important that the binding time be early so
> that a compiler can discard the sections of code that are not needed,
> and perfo
