Hi all,
I've finished up my refactor of Guile's arrays. To my eye it's much
nicer now.
The only bits I could anticipate being controversial would be the last
two or three patches, in which bytevectors are given an "element type"
field. This is so that I can make the srfi-4 uniform vector code use
On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 23:12 +0200, Andy Wingo wrote:
> Howdy good sir!
>
I'm back on task. I'll go through your comments from the review of a
month or so ago, and try to push the Unicode stuff next week. Things
seem stable on my end, but, some optimization work remains to be done.
With respect
Daniel Kraft writes:
>>> scheme@(guile-user)> (null? %nil)
>>> #f
>>> scheme@(guile-user)> (equal? %nil (cdr (list 1)))
>>> #f
>>
>> I believe those work in the interpreter, and so are VM bugs. Can you
>> check that with ,o interp #t ?
>
> The first one is indeed #t with the interpreter, the sec
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hey!
>
> Andy Wingo writes:
>
>> All summer? I'm in France frequently. Perhaps one day we should meet up!
That would be great. I'm in the Pyrenees, near Lourdes, from now
until 31st July, and from 11th August until 4th September.
And in the missing peri
Hi Neil,
Neil Jerram wrote:
Daniel Kraft writes:
scheme@(guile-user)> (null? %nil)
#f
scheme@(guile-user)> (equal? %nil (cdr (list 1)))
#f
I believe those work in the interpreter, and so are VM bugs. Can you
check that with ,o interp #t ?
The first one is indeed #t with the interpreter, th
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hey,
>
> Andy Wingo writes:
>
> [...]
>
>> You can't just write functions that return values, you have to contort
>> code to store temporaries and then release and then return. You have
>> to write paired statements. If you call a user function, you really
Daniel Kraft writes:
> Good, that sounds reasonable and is also what I suggest. If we are
> one day able to actually run existing elisp code through Guile, we'll
> find out if anything needs to be changed in order to get a usable
> implementation anyways.
Agreed.
> BTW, I implemented also the
On Jul 19, 2009, at 16:10, Neil Jerram wrote:
BTW, I implemented also the function bindings of symbols using this
fluid-based dynamic scoping at the moment -- but on second thought,
there's no scoping at all for function slots (all are global), is
there?
No, I don't think there is. `let' can't
