nalaginrut writes:
> Besides, do we have the final conclusion for the multi-lang choosing
> approach, say, --lang=lua/elisp or #lang lua or a script:
> guile-lua/guile-elisp... whatever. IIRC, ijp raised such a topic, but it
> seems no conclusion.
No, I started compiling a list of the pros/cons
As promised in the other thread, here is my list. This was really a
response to the even the earlier thread I started, which I
(unfortunately) didn't reply to at the time.
First off, they important question "why do we need this?". Well, guile
is a multi-language vm in principle, even if Scheme is
As you say, the only real solution is to do more than one of these things.
For instance, I think it's really important to be able to load modules
written in other languages. However, this may be language-dependent to a
certain extent, because some languages (Python) already have ways to define
mod
So, here's the "plan of attack" I'm envisioning for this.
Right now, questions of cross-language module referencing can be
ignored. I think it is mostly orthogonal to the current goal of running
non-scheme scripts.
First, I'm going to try and write a proof-of-concept guile-elisp
executable. This
Hi!
Mark H Weaver skribis:
> Yikes! It looks like this imports most of the libunistring source code
> into Guile.
It’s not “most of” libunistring. In terms of modules, it may be less
than half of the modules that compose libunistring.
But it’s definitely a big chunk of code.
> If we simply
Hi Mark,
Mark H Weaver skribis:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Mark H Weaver skribis:
>>
>>> I guess the one remaining concern I have is that if there are any
>>> long-running futures in the process, then any 'touch' could take a very
>>> long time to complete, even if the future
Hi!
nalaginrut skribis:
> @ludo: Thanks! I'll try to do it follow your steps.
> Besides, do we have the final conclusion for the multi-lang choosing
> approach, say, --lang=lua/elisp or #lang lua or a script:
> guile-lua/guile-elisp... whatever. IIRC, ijp raised such a topic, but it
> seems no
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 18:04 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi!
>
> nalaginrut skribis:
>
> > @ludo: Thanks! I'll try to do it follow your steps.
> > Besides, do we have the final conclusion for the multi-lang choosing
> > approach, say, --lang=lua/elisp or #lang lua or a script:
> > guile-lua/
On Mon, 2012-11-19 at 22:07 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi!
>
> nalaginrut skribis:
>
> > I'd like to know what work should the maintainer take? As I know there's
> > some work has been done, but it didn't merge into stable-2.0. What's the
> > rest work? Does it work now?
>
> I think the f
