Hello,
Noah Lavine writes:
>>> We talked about having a Scheme-based language that could compile to
>>> both plain C and JIT, but decided that would make the VM too
>>> complicated,
>>
>> Maybe I forgot to feed that thread, but I think it might be easier to
>> have a high-level representation th
Hi Bruce,
On Thu 24 Feb 2011 23:58, Bruce Korb writes:
> Anyway, picking up threads from 2003 and 2008:
> http://osdir.com/ml/lisp.guile.devel/2003-05/msg00202.html
> http://www.mail-archive.com/guile-devel@gnu.org/msg02825.html
> http://www.mail-archive.com/guile-devel@gnu.org/msg02826.html
>
>
On Mon 28 Feb 2011 22:49, Noah Lavine writes:
> val (defined in call to define-syntactic-accessor, file.scm:53) = 5
> val (defined in call to define-syntactic-accessor, file.scm:55) = 7
It's not a bad idea. Our docstring situation for values -- like ints,
for example -- is not that good; if we
On Mon 28 Feb 2011 22:28, Andy Wingo writes:
> But you have to, I think. If that module that contained the above
> define-syntactic-accessor expansion exports "foo", then in another
> module you have:
>
> (define bar (lambda () (foo)))
>
> which expands to
>
> (define bar (lambda () val-2341
On Tue 01 Mar 2011 19:55, Mark H Weaver writes:
> I'd like to apply these to both stable-2.0 and master. Any
> objections?
Go ahead, and feel free to push trivial patches like this to
stable-2.0. They'll land on master as we merge stable-2.0 back there.
Thanks!
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
On Tue 08 Mar 2011 23:45, Bruce Korb writes:
> So, this should go under:
> #if GUILE_VERSION > 20 // anything after 2.0, e.g. 2.0.1 ??
Yes, I think that's right.
>> return scm_call_5 (scm_variable_ref (eval_string_var),
>>string,
>
> Wouldn't this arg need to be
Hi Andy!
On 03/08/11 14:28, Andy Wingo wrote:
>> SCM
>> ag_scm_c_eval_string_from_file_line(
>> char const * pzExpr, char const * pzFile, int line)
>
> So! I implemented something, but it's not quite what you asked for.
Sufficiently close that the resulting code isn't "icky". :)
It no longe
Andy Wingo writes:
>>> return scm_call_5 (scm_variable_ref (eval_string_var),
>>>string,
>>
>> Wouldn't this arg need to be SCM-ized? viz. scm_from_locale_string
>> (string)
>
> Indeed; though you should think about encodings here. There is also
> scm_from_utf8_string
Having further investigated, I'm convinced that this is a bug.
Attached are two minimal C programs. Both create threads that do
nothing but sleep for 2 seconds and then exit. The parent tries to join
with the child thread, with a timeout of 10 seconds.
The only difference is that test1 uses scm
