[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Following this discussion, I propose the following addition which
> exposes the wrapping/unwrapping functions of `sockaddr' objects.
Hmm, I think your patch mixes the two ways we have to express a socket
address: one way is an argument convention used
Ken Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not an expert in this area, but my understanding is: [...]
Thanks for the input... */me scratches head* ... this is what the
heathens call their "DLL hell", right?
I would have to see a concrete patch to have a more concrete opinion.
Right now, I do
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Certainly. Somehow the e-mail I sent yesterday which had these portions
> of code didn't make it past my computer. So here it is: [...]
I'm sorry but I can't see anything wrong here which might account what
you are seeing. The only other thoughts I have are
- wheth
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 04:13:03PM +0100, Matt Wallis wrote:
> Hi,
> Thank you both for replying.
>
> On Saturday 03 September 2005 12:55, Fabrice wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > For problems with packaging/rpm/deb, please contact the packager of
> > your file. The Guile project publishes .tar.gz file
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Unfortunately, it didn't work. I'm quite sure GC was not the problem, I
> checked using
>
> (add-hook! after-gc-hook (lambda () (display "Garbage
> collection\n")))
You mean that GC was not the problem because a GC never happened?
Fair enough, but you will still need
