Hi Bruce,
Bruce Korb writes:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>
>> Both problems mean that libltd.so isn’t in the loader’s search path
>> ($LD_LIBRARY_PATH). In 1.8 ‘configure’ wrecks havoc when libltdl.so
>> isn’t found, instead of actually diagnosing this.
>>
>> At a
Hi,
Alex Shinn writes:
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>
>> Well, since there are only 9 of them, they could probably be implemented
>> as special cases, with an augmented ‘match-gen-ellipses’, which would be
>> told the minimum number of elements expected?
>
> Oh, the
Hi Mike,
Mike Gran writes:
>> From: Ludovic Courtès
>
>> >> Besides, there’s the undocumented ‘scm_from_stringn’ and the internal
>> >> ‘scm_to_stringn’, which can convert from/to any encoding. I think they
>> >> were initially kept internal because we weren’t quite sure about the
>> >>
Hi,
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Tue 07 Sep 2010 19:11, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Mike Gran writes:
>>
>>> From: Ludovic Courtès
>>>
Besides, there’s the undocumented ‘scm_from_stringn’ and the internal
‘scm_to_stringn’, which can convert from/to any encoding. I think
Hi,
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Sun 05 Sep 2010 17:10, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>
>>> BTW, while we’re at it, how about make-foreign-function =>
>>> pointer->procedure?
>>
>> We briefly discussed this on IRC. One issue with the
>> ‘pointer
Hello,
On Wed 08 Sep 2010 04:18, Alex Shinn writes:
> "..1" is actually useful - it's the analog of "+" in regular
> expressions, and allows simplifying many syntax-rules
> patterns you see written (elt0 elt1 ...) as (elt ..1). If
> the elements are more complex patterns this is a big
> win.
I
Hi Mike,
On Wed 08 Sep 2010 05:26, Mike Gran writes:
> Perhaps something like the attached?
Yes that's fantastic. I only have a couple of comments.
> +...@deftypefn {C function} char *scm_to_stringn (SCM str, size_t *lenp,
> const char *encoding, scm_t_string_failed_conversion_handler handler
Hi!
On Wed 08 Sep 2010 14:11, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Apart from that, if Andy agrees, you can go ahead and push.
It seems I hadn't pulled mail before replying. I'm OK with things, but
I'd still like to argue for "latin1" instead of "iso889595858951" ;-). I
know it's imprecise b
Hi!
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Wed 08 Sep 2010 14:11, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Apart from that, if Andy agrees, you can go ahead and push.
>
> It seems I hadn't pulled mail before replying. I'm OK with things, but
> I'd still like to argue for "latin1" instead of "iso889595858951
