Re: Plan for 2.0

2009-01-12 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, David Séverin writes: > Don't you think that the 'using thread' on debian [and other distro?] > shouldn't be > solved before to call a release '2.xx'? That Debian builds Guile --without-threads is a Debian-specific problem. The fact that Guile with and without threads aren't ABI-compatibl

Re: is guile thought to work on Mac OS X???

2009-01-12 Thread Greg Troxel
"Neil Jerram" writes: > 2009/1/10 Greg Troxel : > >> is load-extension expected to deal with this, and perhaps the problem >> is a stray .so in a call that shouldn't be there? > > I would guess that it is libltdl's job to know that the correct suffix > on MacOS is .dylib. This seems to be a l

Re: Plan for 2.0

2009-01-12 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hello, "Neil Jerram" writes: > That's good, but I think I didn't explain the possible problem fully, > i.e. that the substitute won't work. Because of how Guile saves and > restores continuations (by copying the stack), and how it uses alloca > to create space for debug information on the stack

Re: another thing about merging guile-vm

2009-01-12 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hello! Andy Wingo writes: > Licensing would be another thing to look at when merging the vm > branch -- currently it's under GPL + exception. Kei is still > contactable though, I have his mail somewhere. If Kei has already signed > papers we can just relicense it ourselves, however. AFAICS, it'

Re: someone please implement a lua language

2009-01-12 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi Derek, I'll copy the list, as a couple other people had similar questions. I hope you don't mind. On Mon 12 Jan 2009 01:26, Derek Peschel writes: > So you're saying Tcl has Algol-like syntax? That's a bit of a > stretch. :) Ooh, you're right. I don't know what I was thinking :) >> That's

Re: another thing about merging guile-vm

2009-01-12 Thread Neil Jerram
2009/1/12 Ludovic Courtès : > Hello! > > Andy Wingo writes: > >> Licensing would be another thing to look at when merging the vm >> branch -- currently it's under GPL + exception. Kei is still >> contactable though, I have his mail somewhere. If Kei has already signed >> papers we can just relicen

what happened with gds breakpoints?

2009-01-12 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi Neil, Why did you remove GDS breakpoints? The idea sounded nice: While they are an important piece of infrastructure, and directly usable in some scenarios, traps are still too low level to meet some of the requirements of interactive development. A common scenario is that a n

Re: what happened with gds breakpoints?

2009-01-12 Thread Neil Jerram
2009/1/12 Andy Wingo : > Hi Neil, Hi Andy, > Why did you remove GDS breakpoints? The idea sounded nice: I think because the implementation as was was confusing too many things: - the idea of being able to specify (in Scheme terms) where a breakpoint ought to be, equally before or after the rele

Re: another thing about merging guile-vm

2009-01-12 Thread Ludovic Courtès
"Neil Jerram" writes: > Yes, something else on my todo list. It's looking like an easy > decision, though, since nobody replied to say that they have of know > of a GPLv2-only application. We should announce it more formally, but > I think we can assume that Guile v2 will be LGPLv3+. Agreed.

Re: Guile licensing and GPL v2-only applications?

2009-01-12 Thread Neil Jerram
Hi Guilers, We recently announced (below) that we were looking at changing Guile's license to LGPLv3+, and asked if anyone knew of any GPLv2-only applications that this would cause a problem for. There were no responses; therefore the plan as of now is that Guile v2 (i.e. the next major release,

Re: Plan for 2.0

2009-01-12 Thread Neil Jerram
2009/1/12 Ludovic Courtès : > Hello, > > "Neil Jerram" writes: > >> That's good, but I think I didn't explain the possible problem fully, >> i.e. that the substitute won't work. Because of how Guile saves and >> restores continuations (by copying the stack), and how it uses alloca >> to create sp

Re: Plan for 2.0

2009-01-12 Thread Neil Jerram
2009/1/12 Neil Jerram : > 2009/1/12 Ludovic Courtès : >> Hello, >> >> "Neil Jerram" writes: >> >>> That's good, but I think I didn't explain the possible problem fully, >>> i.e. that the substitute won't work. Because of how Guile saves and >>> restores continuations (by copying the stack), and h

Re: [BDW-GC] Static cell/string/symbol allocation

2009-01-12 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi Ken, Thanks for your reply. Ken Raeburn writes: > There's no portable way, but it might be a bit more likely to happen > if you try something like: > > union { > scm_t_cell cell[2]; > double d_for_alignment; > long long ll_for_alignment; > } The issue with this is that there's nothing

Re: [BDW-GC] Static cell/string/symbol allocation

2009-01-12 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi! l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > I modified in the BDW-GC branch to transparently have all > `SCM_SYMBOL ()' invocations use a statically allocated stringbuf. The > symbol itself still has to be interned then so for simplicity the > implementation statically allocates an immutable s