Re: port-filename and path canonicalization

2010-04-22 Thread Thien-Thi Nguyen
() l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) () Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:26:43 +0200 > That is, if a file port supports ‘file-port-directory’, then how > to use/restrict the resulting object is left up to higher layers, > where it belongs. I would put it the other way round: if an application wants t

Re: srfe records in reworked match

2010-04-22 Thread Andy Wingo
On Wed 21 Apr 2010 10:40, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > FWIW I’d really prefer if it could work with SRFI-9 (which is purely > syntactic, so there’s no run-time record type descriptor) rather than > with Guile’s records (as above). There is a run-time rtd, of sorts; it is the struct-vt

Re: Code coverage reports for Scheme

2010-04-22 Thread Andy Wingo
On Wed 21 Apr 2010 23:59, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Here’s a code coverage report for Guile’s Scheme code: > > http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/software/guile/guile.lcov/ Very cool, excellent hacking! A -- http://wingolog.org/

Re: a plan for native compilation

2010-04-22 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi Ken, On Wed 21 Apr 2010 19:02, Ken Raeburn writes: > On Apr 18, 2010, at 07:41, Andy Wingo wrote: >> Specifically, we should make it so that there is nothing you would > want >> to go to a core file for. Compiling Scheme code to native code should >> never produce code that segfaults at runti

Re: port-filename and path canonicalization

2010-04-22 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi Ludovic, On Tue 20 Apr 2010 18:57, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: >> 2. I think a fluid is still necessary, because a file being >> compiled can do an `include' or `include-from-path', or even >> `open-input-file' in a macro, and all these cases you would want the >> same %file-port-na

Re: srfe records in reworked match

2010-04-22 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Andy Wingo writes: > On Wed 21 Apr 2010 10:40, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> FWIW I’d really prefer if it could work with SRFI-9 (which is purely >> syntactic, so there’s no run-time record type descriptor) rather than >> with Guile’s records (as above). > > There is a run-time rtd,

Re: port-filename and path canonicalization

2010-04-22 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Andy Wingo writes: > On Tue 20 Apr 2010 18:57, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >>> 2. I think a fluid is still necessary, because a file being >>> compiled can do an `include' or `include-from-path', or even >>> `open-input-file' in a macro, and all these cases you would want the >>

Re: srfe records in reworked match

2010-04-22 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi, On Thu 22 Apr 2010 14:27, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: >> There would be no penalty making Guile's records interoperable with >> SRFI-9 records. > > Currently Guile’s SRFI-9 accessors are “integratable” whereas record > accessors aren’t. IOW, until Guile has an inliner, there’d be

Re: srfe records in reworked match

2010-04-22 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Andy Wingo writes: > This does not affect SRFI-9 accessors at all; they can still be > integrable. Not unless ‘record-accessor’ is bypassed. Thanks, Ludo’.

Re: srfe records in reworked match

2010-04-22 Thread Andy Wingo
On Thu 22 Apr 2010 14:57, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Andy Wingo writes: > >> This does not affect SRFI-9 accessors at all; they can still be >> integrable. > > Not unless ‘record-accessor’ is bypassed. I'm not talking about implementing srfi-9 record accessors in terms of guile rec

Re: srfe records in reworked match

2010-04-22 Thread stefan
ok, It took much longer time to make this work then the logic deserved acording to your wishes, mainly because I have not wrapped my head correctly around define-syntax and friends. There is a discussion going on right know on accessors et all. I hope that you can detail the conclusion of that