/.cache/guile/ccache/2.2-LE-8-3.A/home/hanwen/vc/lilypond/ew.scm.go'
>> [hanwen@localhost lilypond]$ GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE=0 guile2.2 ew.scm
>> I-am-called-at-runtime xy
>> Backtrace:
>>6 (apply-smob/1 #)
>> In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>> 705:2 5 (call-with-prompt ("prompt") # …)
>> In ice-9/eval.scm:
>> 619:8 4 (_ #(#(#)))
>> In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>>2312:4 3 (save-module-excursion #)
>> 3832:12 2 (_)
>> In ew.scm:
>> 10:10 1 (runtime-call "xy")
>> In unknown file:
>>0 (scm-error misc-error #f "~A ~S ~S ~S" ("No variabl…" …) …)
>>
>> ERROR: In procedure scm-error:
>> No variable named xy in #
>>
But that is not using a local define at all. Can you point out the
actual code that failed for you?
--
David Kastrup
hat inner calls make-var (and
accesses decl) which is only being defined at expansion time.
The error message, however, rather appears to complain about inner being
undefined rather than the definition of inner referring to undefined
entities.
Can you clarify?
--
David Kastrup
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 11:11 AM David Kastrup wrote:
>> >> Here is an example that shows better how things work, and what might
>> >> be the cause of my problems. Is it right that programmatically set
>> >> contents of "
Linus Björnstam writes:
> On Sat, 1 Feb 2020, at 12:09, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Can you expand about the "expansion time and macro time separation"?
>>
>> If we have
>>
>> (define decl '())
>> (define (make-var n v) (list "
free expressions (namely quoted lists) and returns the last one which is
(define q "i am Q\n")
This then gets evaluated at run time, defining q .
You probably wanted something like
`(begin (define p ...) (define q ...))
as your body (and return expression) instead.
> (my-macro-old 1 2)
> (my-macro-new 1 2)
> (display x1)
> (display x2)
> (display q)
> (display p)
>
>
> thanks,
--
David Kastrup
m checking in the changes or otherwise contributing
them in a manner making clear that the contribution is intentional.
Matching copyright headers are obviously a good indicator for that.
--
David Kastrup
later the owner says "You took the halter! I did not sell the
halter!" that's a worse situation to be in rather than if he handed you
the horse including halter, even though the halter is not in the
contract.
Frankly, in the given situation I should be rather surprised if there
was potential for misunderstandings. It does look like both the intent
to contribute as well as the compass of the contribution are quite
well-understood.
--
David Kastrup
other representation better suited to
compile into code for a certain amount of registers. Of course, the
threshold to picking actual registers of the available processor and
compiling native code is then not all too large.
--
David Kastrup
oint of
a string is to be an array of characters. Not an array of arbitrarily
encoded bytes.
--
David Kastrup
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hi,
>
> David Kastrup skribis:
>
>> Shouldn't strings be in "internal encoding" anyway? The whole point of
>> a string is to be an array of characters. Not an array of arbitrarily
>> encoded bytes.
>
>
hout
change.
Things are complicated enough talking to the outside. There is no point
in Guile being confused even when talking to itself.
--
David Kastrup
rguments both in favor and against separate binary/textual ports.
The question binary/textual concerns ports connected to a file. String
ports and Scheme ports should be _transparent_: input and output
identical. They are used for connecting character streams within Scheme
and should not tamper with them.
--
David Kastrup
would seem like a reasonably useful idea. After
all, there already _is_ such a mechanism underlying hash tables so it
seems somewhat peculiar not to have it available for vectors as well.
Suggestions?
--
David Kastrup
Krister Svanlund writes:
> On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 2:32 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>
> One principal distinguishing feature, like with a Scheme
> hashtable, is the ability to grow on-demand.
>
> Scheme/Guile vectors are fixed size.
>
> It is a bit
Daniel Hartwig writes:
> On 9 June 2012 20:32, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> the main data structure of Lua is a "table", an associative array, and a
>> table t has a continguous numerically addressed part from 1..#t, with
>> all othe
Daniel Hartwig writes:
> On 11 June 2012 12:37, David Kastrup wrote:
>> What is a vlist?
>
> vlist is a data type introduced around guile 2.0. You will find it
> documented in the Guile Reference under Compound Data Types.
>
> They are growable and provide vector-like
Andy Wingo writes:
> You raise an interesting issue. But first, a nitpick :)
>
> On Sat 09 Jun 2012 14:32, David Kastrup writes:
>
>> Scheme hashtable
>
> To be very pedantic, there are no hashtables in R5RS Scheme. SRFI-69
> and R6RS specify them (in different way
f dynvector-grow!, doing the growth in a
loop rather then just the determination of the new size seems a bit
expensive:
(while (<= (dynvector-capacity dynvector) k)
(dynvector-grow! dynvector))
--
David Kastrup
Andy Wingo writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon 11 Jun 2012 11:55, David Kastrup writes:
>
>> Tables are a superset of what I need here. I need the "growable vector"
>> aspect, not the "hash part" aspect. Guile 1.8 only offers subsets:
>> "growable&
David Kastrup writes:
> Andy Wingo writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon 11 Jun 2012 11:55, David Kastrup writes:
>>
>>> Tables are a superset of what I need here. I need the "growable vector"
>>> aspect, not the "hash part"
David Kastrup writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>
>> Andy Wingo writes:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Mon 11 Jun 2012 11:55, David Kastrup writes:
>>>
>>>> Tables are a superset of what I need here. I need the "growable vector&q
e point in thinking up yet another restriction that will make
for a new data structure "complementing" the others?
Why not just have a superset without arbitrary restriction and implement
the other structures based on that? Then each one just needs to enforce
its personal restrictions in its accessor functions, and otherwise just
use what is there in the general mechanism.
--
David Kastrup
Daniel Hartwig writes:
> On 11 June 2012 20:00, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> I guess to summarize: if you want an abstraction like tables, you would
>>> build it out of vectors and hash tables. But vectors and hash tables
>>> themselves are the lower-level buildi
Daniel Hartwig writes:
> On 11 June 2012 20:20, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> P.S.: I still need to look at vlists. They might already address this
>>> issue, though I can't use them in Guile 1.8.
>>
>> No, the "immutable" angle would make them
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Mon 11 Jun 2012 16:19, David Kastrup writes:
>
>> Are you even reading what you are replying to?
>
> Please be civil. People are trying to help you.
More like telling me off. Of course, I am perfectly able to implement
my own moderately efficien
Mark H Weaver writes:
> Hi David,
>
> David Kastrup writes:
>> I don't think I need yet another data structure deficient in some
>> respects. We have vectors that can't grow, hashtables that can grow but
>> only index through a hash function, vlists that c
Mark H Weaver writes:
> Hi David,
>
> David Kastrup writes:
>> Mark H Weaver writes:
>>> Simpler data structures can usually be implemented with less memory,
>>> shorter code sequences with fewer conditional branches and less space in
>>> the instruct
Mark H Weaver writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>> Mark H Weaver writes:
>>> C++, like Scheme, already supports fixed-size vectors in the core
>>> language, so it would be redundant to include them in a library.
>>
>> A vector with run-time determined siz
Mark H Weaver writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>> Scheme/Guile vectors are fixed size. [...] It is a bit of a nuisance
>> that one can grow a hashtable efficiently and on-demand, but not so an
>> array.
>
> Although Scheme vectors should remain fixed-size for reaso
Daniel Hartwig writes:
> On 14 June 2012 22:47, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Mark H Weaver writes:
>>
>>> David Kastrup writes:
>>>> Scheme/Guile vectors are fixed size. [...] It is a bit of a nuisance
>>>> that one can grow a hashtable eff
Daniel Hartwig writes:
> On 14 June 2012 23:34, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Huh? When resizing a hash table by doubling, you need to recoalesce
>> each bucket to two buckets, one of which is the original. Doubling
>> the size of the underlying vector is a rea
Daniel Hartwig writes:
> On 15 June 2012 01:15, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Daniel Hartwig writes:
>>> What is this half-in-place algorithm that makes this efficient? If
>>> the table is to remain balanced, all items should be rehashed and
>>> realloc
start index agnostic).
Indexes in math often run from 1, being able to translate into a
straightforward 1-based rendition can avoid transliteration errors.
It is definitely a higher-level feature and not a fundamental property
of underlying primitive data types, though.
--
David Kastrup
specified*
I think that is wrong. A variable reference can't really be anything
except eq? to itself in my opinion. As long as a Scheme object is not
being manipulated in any manner, it should stay eq? to itself.
What am I missing?
--
David Kastrup
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Wed 20 Jun 2012 12:40, David Kastrup writes:
>
>> Numbers and characters are not equal to any other object, but the
>> problem is they're not necessarily `eq?' to themselves either.
>> This is even so when the num
David Kastrup writes:
> I think it is completely absurd. It would mean, for example, that
> (memq x (list x))
> is generally unspecified. It would mean that things like
> (eq? (car x) (car x))
> are generally unspecified even when x is a pair.
So that we can have (eq? x x) but
do so in an alternate universe.
Again: it is fine if an optimizer chooses not to track object identities
for numeric values. But if it doesn't, it needs to assume they are eq?
when equal rather than some random choice.
--
David Kastrup
er or running memq on a
list containing a number.
That would be interesting and apparently permissible behavior. I have
my doubts that users will be impressed favorably.
--
David Kastrup
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Wed 20 Jun 2012 16:31, David Kastrup writes:
>
>> Andy Wingo writes:
>>
>>> interesting and permissible optimizations
>>
>> Name one.
>
> FWIW, eta-conversion (for primitives). Copy propagation for the
> purposes of inli
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Wed 20 Jun 2012 16:27, David Kastrup writes:
>
>> I am not comparing numbers when writing (eq? x x).
>> I am checking the identity of an object. Whether that object is a
>> number or not, and if so, what value it has, is irrelevant.
>
>
Pierpaolo Bernardi writes:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Andy Wingo writes:
>>
>> If the Scheme standard states that
>>
>> (and (pair? x) (not (eq? (car x) (car x
>>
>> can return #t in a conforming implementation,
remember correctly, even something like C:\tmp\nul.txt would serve
as null device, though I cannot vouch for this remaining true with
NT-based Windows systems. It was the case for those versions running on
top of MSDOS I'm pretty sure.
--
David Kastrup
nstead of throwing early.
Shouldn't we worry about switching _to_ guile-2.0 first?
--
David Kastrup
Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>
> Hi David,
>
>> Shouldn't we worry about switching _to_ guile-2.0 first?
>
> Are you asking for help on this?
Is there any to be had? I got a whole lot of promises from Guile
developers over the years. Basical
David Kastrup writes:
[...]
I apologize for sending this and the previous mail to the Guile-devel
list in violation of my ban here. I had been of the impression that
this was copied to the LilyPond developer list rather than the Guile
developer list.
Feel free to delete it.
--
David Kastrup
*/
/* The setter and getter are unsynchronized.*/
GC_API void GC_CALL GC_set_java_finalization(int);
GC_API int GC_CALL GC_get_java_finalization(void);
This might be enough to make the scheme work. A whole bit of type field
might be much, however. I seem to remember that there are only 8 to go
around anyway.
--
David Kastrup
mp; ~(scm_t_bits) 0xff00);
+
+ return (void *) smobnum;
+}
this looks like only clearing the smob type field, leaving the flags in
place. So if you really need some former type information for a
decommissioned object, it could be stored in the flags (which are
documented as still being referenceable).
--
David Kastrup
pilation run is not an
option.
But you really cannot maintain one large project sensibly under two
fundamentally different toolchains. Particularly not a GNU-relevant one
that will want to be able to access a number of UNIX-typical facilities
and programs in order not to degress into what programming was before
the seventies.
--
David Kastrup
Hi,
in guile 1.8.?, hashq-set! returns the set value. That is quite
inconsistent with the behavior of set! (which returns SCM_UNSPECIFIED)
and undocumented as well. A good reason for that?
--
David Kastrup
.
--
David Kastrup
x27;s up with that?
--
David Kastrup
David Kastrup writes:
> The module system documentation provides _no_ _clue_ _whatsoever_ about
> how something like
> (symbol-set! #f (string->symbol name) value)
> could be replaced. In fact, the module system documentation provides
> _no_ _clue_ _whatsoever_ how to actu
David Kastrup writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>
>> The module system documentation provides _no_ _clue_ _whatsoever_ about
>> how something like
>> (symbol-set! #f (string->symbol name) value)
>> could be replaced. In fact, the module system documentation pro
t -pedantic should stay optional.
--
David Kastrup
t unspecified.
I've actually wondered if it would not make sense to return
*unspecified* in the case of the plain else-less if even if the
condition is true, namely when you write (if #t #t).
There is probably code relying on this to be #t, but frankly, this
appears like a recipe for breakage.
--
David Kastrup
Thien-Thi Nguyen writes:
> () David Kastrup
> () Sat, 03 Dec 2011 16:45:06 +0100
>
>The lack of procedure-environment in Guilev2 implies that I
>have to wrap the stuff in (lambda () ...) in order to capture
>the lexical environment for evaluation.
>
>
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Tue 06 Dec 2011 12:17, David Kastrup writes:
>
>> I've actually wondered if it would not make sense to return
>> *unspecified* in the case of the plain else-less if even if the
>> condition is true, namely when you write (if #t #t).
27;m not
> returning any values"?
Testing for that is not all that much fun. It is also rather useless
since pretty much all of the call-for-effect functions of Guile return
*unspecified* rather than (values).
It is not clear to me why (values) can't just evaluate to a single
*unspecified* just like '() evaluates to null. Outside of
call-with-values, I don't see much need to treat it special.
--
David Kastrup
"Chris K. Jester-Young" writes:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 11:08:08PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> > Have you considered using `(values)' as your way of saying, "I'm not
>> > returning any values"?
>>
>> Testing for that is not all
y
_documented_?
This is not the first such "deprecation" I have encountered, and it
shows a blatant disrespect of the user base.
--
David Kastrup
7;t return a
specified value when the condition is not true since then no form gets
evaluated. So where is the point in returning a value that is only
sometimes specified? "Sometimes specified" logically is pretty much the
same as "unspecified", and then we might return *unspecified* right
away.
--
David Kastrup
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Wed 07 Dec 2011 13:58, David Kastrup writes:
>
>> `dimensions->uniform-array' is deprecated. Use `make-typed-array' instead.
>>
>> Unfortunately, this was not even called in the application.
>>
>> The actual function ca
ubt that crashing and burning silently, as others apparently do, will
be much preferable.
--
David Kastrup
e that sloppiness costs them
their user and in following their developer base.
If I wanted an incoherent junk yard of half-features, I would start with
Common Lisp instead of Scheme.
--
David Kastrup
"Chris K. Jester-Young" writes:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 10:23:25AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Well, you'd need to have
>>
>> (call-with-values (lambda () *unspecified*) (lambda x (length x))) => 0
> [...]
>> That means that one _only_
"Chris K. Jester-Young" writes:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 09:42:36AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> So here is another proposal: (values) is not the same as *unspecified*.
>> But if you take the first value of a values list in single-value
>> contexts, there
as unsavory as a bug
has a sinister flavor to it after all. It has found a home and place it
has been enjoying for years in peace and company.
--
David Kastrup
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Thu 08 Dec 2011 21:32, David Kastrup writes:
>
>>> So please keep up your (useful!) bug reports, but try to give them a
>>> more positive flavor :)
>>
>> Could you give an example how to deliver with a positive flavor a report
>>
writes:
> ---- David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> An application "guile-bug" is mentioned nowhere.
>
> "bug-gu...@gnu.org" is a mailing list, not an application. You use
> your email application to send the bug report.
Indeed. At some point of time I lost
Marco Maggi writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Hi, if I have something read that is evaluated later, the
>> lack of procedure-environment in Guilev2 implies that I
>> have to wrap the stuff in (lambda () ...) in order to
>> capture the lexical environment f
David Kastrup writes:
> Marco Maggi writes:
>
>> David Kastrup wrote:
>>> Hi, if I have something read that is evaluated later, the
>>> lack of procedure-environment in Guilev2 implies that I
>>> have to wrap the stuff in (lambda () ...) in order
Mark H Weaver writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>> Basically I need to evaluate dynamic code in a given lexical environment
>> rather than at top and/or module level.
>>
>> For a language that is supposed to be a building block for extension
>> languages, not
Mark H Weaver writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>>> In general, the _right_ way to build a custom extension language using
>>> Guile 2 is to write a compiler that converts your language into one of
>>> the other languages that Guile 2 supports.
>>
>&
and pieces where it is
convenient. That it _integrates_ with a larger system. Lexical
environments are a fundamental part of what integration may involve, and
they operate at a different level as modules. Macros play _into_
lexical environments, so obviously Scheme itself recognizes the
importance of being able to extend.
--
David Kastrup
some work, it could present a similar interface to
> 1.8's `local-eval', `procedure-environment', `the-environment', and
> such things.
When we are forced to reimplement a toy Scheme interpreter from scratch
anyway, including implementing every single defining form, one really
has to ask oneself why pick Guile in the first place if it does not give
you a Scheme language to work with? Just for the API?
--
David Kastrup
ircular evaluator instead.
You could likely also use Guile for _bootstrapping_ a meta circular
evaluator. But that is not really the same thing.
--
David Kastrup
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Tue 13 Dec 2011 10:02, David Kastrup writes:
>
>> Lilypond's input language is not "David's current strategy".
>
> I was referring to your implementation strategy.
It's not a strategy. Merely the least painful way to do things
lypond already has an ugly inefficient hack in it that will keep it
working in regard of the closure department largely independent of
whatever Guile development chooses to come up with next.
> On Tue 13 Dec 2011 14:56, David Kastrup writes:
>
>>> I wonder if we could provide som
David Kastrup writes:
> So I don't think that throwing out _distinguishing_ selling points of
> Guile is necessarily doing you a favor. And the transparency with
> which it integrates with its language environment and the fact that
> one can continue to use its evaluator and
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Tue 13 Dec 2011 16:27, David Kastrup writes:
>
>>> It sounds like `current-bindings' is the thing you need.
>>
>> It will at least be a year before any solution that does not work with
>> Guile 1.8 will be accepted into Lilypo
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Tue 13 Dec 2011 16:27, David Kastrup writes:
>
>>> It sounds like `current-bindings' is the thing you need.
>>
>> It will at least be a year before any solution that does not work with
>> Guile 1.8 will be accepted into Lilypo
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Tue 13 Dec 2011 17:08, David Kastrup writes:
>
>> The current implementation wraps scraps of code into (lambda () ...) and
>> executes them on-demand. So the expectation is that embedded Scheme
>> code can have side-effects on the lexic
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Tue 13 Dec 2011 17:54, David Kastrup writes:
>
>>> Am I missing something?
>>
>> Performance, space, simplicity, robustness. Compiling five closures
>> that do nothing except accessing a single variable each is a bit
>> wasteful
reliable idea what "memoize" means exactly in Guile's
terminology, and the parts of the manual I have consulted have no qualms
using this expression, but don't bother explaining it.
--
David Kastrup
ronment
> representation.
>
> Anyway, it's looking in the wrong place. There is a compiler too.
We might be miscommunicating here. Lilypond calls eval on the # and $
scraps (though I don't know whether that would be ice-9 or not).
Actually, I have no idea what else it could call.
--
David Kastrup
, the enclosing code
can't be optimized (in the current implementation, it is simply left
uncompiled). So it is a good idea to place performance-critical code in
functions separate from those where you need to capture the
environment." should likely be enough.
--
David Kastrup
ely because of not
changing modules), I left worrying about this alone.
--
David Kastrup
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Wed 14 Dec 2011 00:45, David Kastrup writes:
>
>> Andy Wingo writes:
>>
>>> On Wed 14 Dec 2011 00:00, Noah Lavine writes:
>>>
>>>> I haven't really been contributing to this thread, so please take my
>>>&g
h undocumented internals is not safe
to rely on at all. It can break at any point of time with no active
Guile developer being in a position where he would feel compelled to fix
it for the sake of Guile.
--
David Kastrup
access the power of Scheme transparently without losing
expressivity in the main user language of your system.
--
David Kastrup
to turn GUILE into Emacs Lisp rather than implement Elisp on
top of it. I have not actually looked at the respective code bases.
That's just a gut feeling of what would be cool, and also provide a user
experience that is not purely either/or regarding what layer one is
working in.
--
David Kastrup
k that GUILE might be selling itself under value when
compared to its competitors, possibly without compelling need when I
look at the sketches of Mark and the discussion of them.
--
David Kastrup
e of the-environment)
or more coherently (in the case of procedure-environment and
local-eval). Then maybe enough people would have found a use for them
that they would not have to rely on me to stand up for them.
--
David Kastrup
he string in order to get useful error
messages. So it took work getting errors to throw where they belong.
So at its current state, Lilypond itself does not much more than
lukewarmly ask for local-eval. But for the sake of GUILE, I would
consider it a mistake to lose sight of it. It is a powerful tool in the
language embedding and self-awareness department.
--
David Kastrup
David Kastrup writes:
> To be fair: this is what we currently do, and we only actually call
> those lambdas that end up actually being recognized by the grammar.
> So as long as (primitive-eval `(lambda () ,(read))) is guaranteed to
> not ever choke, the potential for error is limit
articular, it will refinish macro expansion (so
you don't want significant material behind it) and reevaluate the
_whole_ eval it is in up to the point of calling my-env (so you don't
want significant material before it).
So it is more a joke than anything of practical value. But is _is_ good
for a few dropjaws.
--
David Kastrup
David Kastrup writes:
> (define (my-eval form env)
> (call-with-current-continuation
>(lambda (x)
> (env (list x form)
>
> (define-macro (my-env)
> (call-with-current-continuation
>identity))
>
>
> (format #t "~a" (my-eval &
to the previous code version running under Guile 1.8,
robustness, cleanliness and manageability of the code have taken a step
backwards. It's not a mile, but not trivial either.
--
David Kastrup
)
Stallman -pedantic guile.scm
looks redundant.
--
David Kastrup
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
1 - 100 of 210 matches
Mail list logo
