Re: Special variables to relax boxing

Hi guiler, Hi Daniel. I lost this thread in my mail application, sorry, so I try to continue this way instead. * This feature for scheme is mainly for macro writers which knows what they are doing and which only guard state varibles not seen to the application programmer. This is how I use

Re: Do you recognize these modules?

() Andy Wingo () Tue, 15 May 2012 22:14:31 +0200 2.0 is the current stable branch, so any changes should go there first. If it's a build fix or some other fix related to forward-compatibility with 2.0, it can go on 1.8 as well. We should avoid adding interfaces to 1.8, though. W

GOOPS and hash-tables - ie.

Hi, I desperately need to write a generic method that binds to a hash-table. I have noticed that native scheme types like pair, list, and vector are automagically recognised in GOOPS as , , and . Even SRFI-19 dates are recognised as . How then to add similar goodness so that I can write: (d

Re: GOOPS and hash-tables - ie.

On 23 March 2013 19:18, Brent Pinkney wrote: > Hi, > > I desperately need to write a generic method that binds to a hash-table. > > I have noticed that native scheme types like pair, list, and vector are > automagically recognised in GOOPS as , , and . > Even SRFI-19 dates are recognised as . How

Re: GOOPS and hash-tables - ie.

On 23/03/2013 16:09, Daniel Hartwig wrote: On 23 March 2013 19:18, Brent Pinkney wrote: Hi, I desperately need to write a generic method that binds to a hash-table. I have noticed that native scheme types like pair, list, and vector are automagically recognised in GOOPS as , , and . Even SRFI

Re: GOOPS and hash-tables - ie.

On 23 March 2013 23:15, Brent Pinkney wrote: > On 23/03/2013 16:09, Daniel Hartwig wrote: >> >> On 23 March 2013 19:18, Brent Pinkney wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I desperately need to write a generic method that binds to a hash-table. >>> >>> I have noticed that native scheme types like pair, list

Re: GOOPS and hash-tables - ie.

On 23 March 2013 23:19, Daniel Hartwig wrote: > On 23 March 2013 23:15, Brent Pinkney wrote: >> Ok, so you have confirmed that you can merrily make my enumerate! method ? >> >> I still fail to. > > Which hash tables are you using? > > scheme@(guile-user)> (define t (make-hash-table)) > scheme@(gu

Re: Special variables to relax boxing

Ok, I have felt your punches against the idea and have thought about it somewhat more. 1. I can only conclude that today it's already difficult to reason about code with respect to multiple restarts of continuation and the main reason is that at least I have been sloppy to add a ! to the macros th

Re: TeXInfo-related build failure

Dmitry Bogatov writes: > Hello, list. I encountered following error, trying to build guile > from git with `makeinfo (GNU texinfo) 5.1`. I believe these problems have been fixed on the stable-2.0 branch of the Guile git repo, but the fixes have not yet been merged into master. Mark

Re: Special variables to relax boxing

There are some bugs in the semantics. I try to fix them here Consider * k, the r5rs continuation * dynamic-wind, r5rs dynamic wind with the addition that continuation k is an argument to the rewinder. Introduce (with-special ((a:id kind:object) ...) code ...) and (set~ a:id v:obj) Introduc

Re: [PATCH] Bindings for ‘sendfile’

Hi Ludovic, The sendfile commit (fbac7c6113056bc6ee85996b10bdc08325c742a5) has caused the following build failures on Hydra. Thanks, Mark == On GNU/Linux: (both i686-linux and x86_64-linux without threads)