I'd like Guile to support something like the patch below - i.e. some way
of being able to execute arbitrary code before a Guile script starts
running, so as to be able to set up breakpoints (or whatever other
mechanisms are available) to trace or debug the script execution. (And
without having to e
On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 17:59 -0400, Ken Raeburn wrote:
> Today (f60e892), it can't compile i18n.c at line 799 on my Mac because
> it tries to deference scm_t_locale which points to an incomplete type.
Yeah. I figured that would break something. I'm trying to find a
decent solution for the probl
Hi Guilers,
Having been motivated by an extended discussion with Andy over pints
in Brooklyn last weekend, I've resolved to return to the issue of R6RS
library support once more. As discussed the last time we took this
on, I think the first step is getting support for version information
into the
Hi Ken,
Ken Raeburn writes:
> Running srfi-18.test
> WARNING: (srfi srfi-18): imported module (srfi srfi-34) overrides core
> binding `raise'
> throw from within critical section.
> error key: foo
> /bin/sh: line 1: 74711 Abort trap ${dir}$tst
> FAIL: check-guile
This must be relat
Hi Neil,
Do you think a special mechanism is needed at all? Isn’t it as easy to
edit the script to be debugged than to remember the right environment
variable name, the right incantation, etc.?
(In my case I know I would most likely end up editing the script rather
than going some other way, unl
On Sep 26, 2009, at 17:02, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Running srfi-18.test
WARNING: (srfi srfi-18): imported module (srfi srfi-34) overrides
core
binding `raise'
throw from within critical section.
error key: foo
/bin/sh: line 1: 74711 Abort trap ${dir}$tst
FAIL: check-guile
This mu
On Sep 26, 2009, at 11:45, Mike Gran wrote:
Backing up to bcccf04, it builds okay, but lots of regexp tests fail
with "illegal byte sequence" errors. With "make -k check", that's
the
only error reported.
This does surprise me. I thought I had fixed that problem. Does it
pass
if you repl
> > This does surprise me. I thought I had fixed that problem. Does it
> > pass
> > if you replace the current test-suite/tests/regexp.test with the 1.8.x
> > version of the regexp test?
Hmmm. Maybe I'll just revert regexp.test.
>
> It passes the regexp tests, yes, but the i18n tests comp
