Andy Wingo writes:
> What if instead we implemented closure serialization somehow? Then we
> would handle procedural macros too, and bound-identifiers would still be
> sufficient.
>
> Maybe that idea is a little too crazy.
Are we still talking about Scheme? The language with
call-with-current-
Mark H Weaver writes:
> (current-module) should be relevant only at the beginning of
> macro-expansion: before any program transformations are performed,
> (current-module) is "baked" into every symbol of the top-level form.
> (psyntax actually does this lazily, but the effect is the same).
>
> A
This patch makes our gensyms universally-unique. Comments welcome.
Mark
>From 18616afc6a3d5aca48da2e0819d08d7ff98de214 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark H Weaver
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:15:10 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] Universally-unique gensyms
* libguile/symbols.c (scm_gensym): The gens
Hi Mark,
Excellent!
On Tue 17 Jan 2012 14:27, Mark H Weaver writes:
> This patch makes our gensyms universally-unique. Comments welcome.
I think the lazy initialization needs to happen within the lock. Also
it would be nice to factor out the initialization of the random seed
would be a nice
On Tue 17 Jan 2012 14:57, Andy Wingo writes:
> I think the lazy initialization needs to happen within the lock. Also
> it would be nice to factor out the initialization of the random seed
> would be a nice helper to have in random.[ch].
Sigh, mind racing ahead of the fingers:
"Also it would
Yes!
see attachement!
/Stefan
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Andy Wingo wrote:
> On Mon 16 Jan 2012 22:56, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
> writes:
>
> > As you see, it's just wild west to get the racket code working.
>
> :)
>
> Can you give a stripped-down test case for this particular behavior?
David Kastrup writes:
> Mark H Weaver writes:
>
>> (current-module) should be relevant only at the beginning of
>> macro-expansion: before any program transformations are performed,
>> (current-module) is "baked" into every symbol of the top-level form.
>> (psyntax actually does this lazily, but
> From: Andy Wingo
> If I could vote for one thing to focus on in 2012, for the broader Guile
> community, I'd pick two things ;-) I'd pick Guile in Emacs, first of
> all. We have the hack power, the time is right, and we just need to
> focus on the task. By the end of the year we could have a c
I feel like I shouldn't get into this discussion for my huge lack of
Guile (and Scheme in general) knowledge. But I will do in any case
:-).
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Mike Gran wrote:
>
[snip]
> I know that you want to believe that if your tech is good enough,
> people will learn Scheme.
