Howdy,
>> Not yet. You interested in adding scm_c_value_ref (SCM, size_t) to the
>> API, and documentation to api-control.texi? If you do it soon, it
>> will make it into 2.0.4.
>
> Sure. Gimme a day or so and I'll have something for review.
Find attached a patch. Let me know if I missed any
On Jan 10, 2012, at 13:22, Daniel Llorens wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2012, at 18:11, Andy Wingo wrote:
>
>> Ew. Why don't we instead allocate a typecode for arrays. I just pushed
>> a patch to do that, and for bitvectors as well. Copying Daniel Llorens,
>> to check that I didn't break arrays.
>
> I'
Hi Andy.
Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:51:42 +0100, wingo wrote:
>> I added to the master file the following comment:
>>
>> ; coding: iso-8859-1
>>
>> which works as documented.
>> How can I avoid to add this comment line to all the other files
>> which are currently included by the master file using "load"
I added to the master file the following comment:
; coding: iso-8859-1
which works as documented.
How can I avoid to add this comment line to all the other files
which are currently included by the master file using
> "load"?
>>>
>>> You can (fluid-set!
On Tue 10 Jan 2012 09:51, Sven Hartrumpf writes:
> Hi Andy.
>
> Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:51:42 +0100, wingo wrote:
>>> I added to the master file the following comment:
>>>
>>> ; coding: iso-8859-1
>>>
>>> which works as documented.
>>> How can I avoid to add this comment line to all the other files
>
-[ Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:15:54PM +0100, Andy Wingo ]
> Why not use program-arguments-alist, or program-lambda-list?
Because they were not in the procedure index, hence the attached patch.
>From 6637ce41e5e8cbfefe4c14c47ac79c7a3f5a6cfe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Cedric Cellier
Date: Wed
Andy Wingo writes:
> We are still very much interested in your contributions, especially now
> that the assignment forms are in :-)
>
> We will be releasing a 2.0.4 soonish, perhaps within a week, and so now
> is a perfect time to send a series of small, easy-to-apply,
> git-format-patch produced
On Jan 9, 2012, at 18:11, Andy Wingo wrote:
> Ew. Why don't we instead allocate a typecode for arrays. I just pushed
> a patch to do that, and for bitvectors as well. Copying Daniel Llorens,
> to check that I didn't break arrays.
I've just tested g3248c95 and I see no breakage.
Thanks,
() Andy Wingo
() Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:18:45 +0100
If you want to, it's probably easier to use `readlink' than to
document the strangeness :-)
Thanks for the tip. Truly, documentation is not so hard, especially
when it's incomplete! (The NEWS entry fails to mention that hardlinks
fail, too
