Re: [PATCH] Tweak web modules, support relative URIs

2013-02-24 Thread Mark H Weaver
Hi Daniel, Daniel Hartwig writes: > * Terminology > > The terminology used in latest URI spec. (RFC 3986) is not widely used > elsewhere. Not by Guile, not by the HTTP spec., or other sources. > Specifically, it defines these terms: > > - URI: scheme rest ... [fragment] > - Absolute-URI: scheme

always O_BINARY?

2013-02-24 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi, Just thinking aloud here -- Windows has this O_BINARY thing that translates CRLF to LF when reading, and LF to CRLF when writing. It seems to me to be a useless thing. We already have our own i/o abstractions and should deal with CRLF vs LF in Scheme, I think: The (newline) function can w

Re: always O_BINARY?

2013-02-24 Thread Neil Jerram
Andy Wingo writes: > Hi, > > Just thinking aloud here -- Windows has this O_BINARY thing that > translates CRLF to LF when reading, and LF to CRLF when writing. It > seems to me to be a useless thing. We already have our own i/o > abstractions and should deal with CRLF vs LF in Scheme, I think:

Re: [PATCH] Tweak web modules, support relative URIs

2013-02-24 Thread Daniel Hartwig
On 24 February 2013 18:45, Mark H Weaver wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Daniel Hartwig writes: >> * Terminology >> >> The terminology used in latest URI spec. (RFC 3986) is not widely used >> elsewhere. Not by Guile, not by the HTTP spec., or other sources. >> Specifically, it defines these terms: >> >

Re: always O_BINARY?

2013-02-24 Thread Mike Gran
> From: Andy Wingo > So, what do you think about always adding O_BINARY to files that Guile > opens? Lilypond, Gnucash, Denemo, Autogen and Emacs all run on Windows to varying degrees. As does Gnome Games. If it doesn't break any of them, then it might be okay. In an ideal world, there would b

Re: [PATCH] Tweak web modules, support relative URIs

2013-02-24 Thread Mark H Weaver
Daniel Hartwig writes: > On 24 February 2013 18:45, Mark H Weaver wrote: >> I would argue that Absolute-URIs are more often appropriate in typical >> user code. The reason is that outside of URI-handling libraries, most >> code that deals with URIs simply use them as universal pointers, >> i.e.

Re: Programming racket like in guile

2013-02-24 Thread Ludovic Courtès
stefan.ita...@gmail.com skribis: > 1. misc small utilities used in the translation process. This can > probably be compartmentized more but it's kind of nice to have one > include file. > > 2. Syntax parse. I used syntax parse to make most of the more advanced > macros in the compability layer. >

scm_t_subr warnings

2013-02-24 Thread Julian Graham
Hey Guilers, Andy and Ludo and I were discussing this on IRC and it was suggested that we move the question to the mailing list. I'm trying to compile some code -- using `gcc -pedantic' -- that invokes `scm_c_make_gsubr', and I'm getting the following warning: warning: ISO C forbids passing arg

Re: always O_BINARY?

2013-02-24 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi! Andy Wingo skribis: > Just thinking aloud here -- Windows has this O_BINARY thing that > translates CRLF to LF when reading, and LF to CRLF when writing. It > seems to me to be a useless thing. We already have our own i/o > abstractions and should deal with CRLF vs LF in Scheme, I think:

Re: Programming racket like in guile

2013-02-24 Thread Stefan Israelsson Tampe
On Sunday, February 24, 2013 10:07:36 PM Ludovic Courtès wrote: > What would have been nice IMO is to import, say, ‘syntax-parse’ and > contracts, without having to pull in a whole compatibility layer. > > Ludo’. I would say that I tried more to make syntax-parse independent. contracts on the oth

Re: CPS Update

2013-02-24 Thread William ML Leslie
On 23 February 2013 18:49, Mark H Weaver wrote: > William ML Leslie writes: >> Recompiling every procedure that uses + when somebody binds it means >> compiling a lot of code that probably isn't going to be used. More >> likely, if + has been inlined here, the compiler will have to emit a >> gua