Hi,
The "delayed evaluation" thread is a bit long and confusing, so I would
like to try to summarize it.
Lilypond has a way to embed Lilypond code in Scheme, and Scheme code in
Lilypond code. The former uses a reader macro, #{#}. The latter uses
specially-marked variables and expressions, speci
Andy Wingo writes:
> It took some time for everyone to understand the problem. In the end,
> there were four workable possibilities.
>
> 1) Keep using closures.
>
> 2) Incorporate local-eval and the-environment into Guile 2.0.
>
> 3) Have lilypond use its own evaluator or compiler.
>
> 4
So it'd be the preform of something kind of Guile's AOT compiler which
we(all guilers) had talked about few months ago?
I think it's a great idea! And I'm glad to see your work.
PS: I agree with "Stallman". ;-)
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Noah Lavine wrote:
> Hello Guile developers,
>
>
Nala Ginrut writes:
> So it'd be the preform of something kind of Guile's AOT compiler which
> we(all guilers) had talked about few months ago?
> I think it's a great idea! And I'm glad to see your work.
>
>
> PS: I agree with "Stallman". ;-)
Stallman -pedantic guile.scm
looks redundant.
--
-pedantic? Sorry, but I'm afraid I didn't see it in Noah's description.
Anyone give me some context?
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:34 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Nala Ginrut writes:
>
> > So it'd be the preform of something kind of Guile's AOT compiler which
> > we(all guilers) had talked about fe
Nala Ginrut writes:
> -pedantic? Sorry, but I'm afraid I didn't see it in Noah's
> description.
>
> Anyone give me some context?
gcc has an option -pedantic for strict standard adherence.
--
David Kastrup
well, I see. I haven't used Stalin before, so I guess the generated C code
must be compiled without any Gcc extension?
@Noah: Anyway, will you add r5rs support to it? I found Stalin doesn't
provide that.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:00 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Nala Ginrut writes:
>
> > -pedant
On 15 Dec 2011, at 11:21, Andy Wingo wrote:
> The "delayed evaluation" thread is a bit long and confusing, so I would
> like to try to summarize it.
>
> Lilypond has a way to embed Lilypond code in Scheme, and Scheme code in
> Lilypond code. The former uses a reader macro, #{#}. The latter uses
Hans Aberg writes:
> On 15 Dec 2011, at 11:21, Andy Wingo wrote:
>
>> The "delayed evaluation" thread is a bit long and confusing, so I would
>> like to try to summarize it.
>>
>> Lilypond has a way to embed Lilypond code in Scheme, and Scheme code in
>> Lilypond code. The former uses a reader
On 15 Dec 2011, at 18:24, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> The "delayed evaluation" thread is a bit long and confusing, so I would
>>> like to try to summarize it.
>>>
>>> Lilypond has a way to embed Lilypond code in Scheme, and Scheme code in
>>> Lilypond code. The former uses a reader macro, #{#}. Th
Hi,
Apologies for not answering earlier, and for making changes without
continuing this discussion. So here’s an after-the-fact reply.
Mark H Weaver skribis:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> It’s not completely satisfying either because --locale is not in
>> 2.0.[0-3], so users who
Hi!
Sorry for the late reply.
Nala Ginrut skribis:
> I found "exec" serial procedures didn't check the unbounded optional
> parameters.
> (execlp "ls") ==> segment fault
What you’re seeing here is SIGABRT, not SIGSEGV, preceded by the message:
A NULL argv[0] was passed through an exec syst
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Nala Ginrut wrote:
> well, I see. I haven't used Stalin before, so I guess the generated C code
> must be compiled without any Gcc extension?
I think he's making a joke that Richard Stallman is always pedantic,
so the -pedantic flag is redundant.
> @Noah: Anyway
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Noah Lavine wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Nala Ginrut
> wrote:
> > well, I see. I haven't used Stalin before, so I guess the generated C
> code
> > must be compiled without any Gcc extension?
>
> I think he's making a joke that Richard Stallman is alw
hi Ludo, thanks for reply.
I realized that it's not SIGSEGV ,it's an "abort" while argv[0] is NULL.
Now the problem is "can we avoid to pass void string to exec proc
explicitly"?
Since Guile provides flexible optional arguments handling, why we can not
do this:
let (execlp "ls") equal to (execlp
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 03:28:07PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Could you integrate it in the Guile tree in a branch, as you proposed on
> IRC? It would make it easier to review it.
Indeed. I might only get to do that in the weekend, and with Christmas
and all that coming up, I can't even prom
Hello all,
Although it has not yet been decided whether `local-eval' will be
accepted into Guile 2, I've decided to proceed with a proper
implementation that is fully integrated into the compiler.
I hope to demonstrate that this feature can be implemented easily
without creating any significant m
17 matches
Mail list logo
