Tim Meehan wrote:
> So ... building the git version of Guile seems different, I looked around
> for an INSTALLING file, and it isn't there (and neither is 'configure') ...
> any hints?
The ‘configure’ script itself can be generated. Many projects have
bootstrap or autogen scripts to do that.
Inde
Mike Gran wrote:
[…]
> There is a binding of tcsetattr in the (ncurses extra) library
> in guile-ncurses, but since you just need a couple of functions, you
> could wrap them in FFI, I suppose.
Shameless plug: https://gitlab.com/ft/guile-termios
I sort of have this ready for guix, too. But I neve
Hi,
Marc Chantreux wrote:
[…]
>> Hope it can help someone to jump in and hack.
>
> i just discovered srfi 64 thanks to your page. the thing is: when it
> comes to test report, i have one simple rule: TAPs or GTFO.
>
> so i saw a TAP lib for guile (https://github.com/xevz/guile-tap) which
> is not
Hi,
Linus Björnstam wrote:
> I just re-read my message and noticed it could come off as somewhat
> dismissive.
> Ah, the joys of not having English as a first language while being a tired
> father :)
Didn't strike me particularly as such. So, all is good.
> I looked through your code. It is ni
John Cowan wrote:
[...]
> The reason bitwise-nand and friends have only two arguments (and this comes
> from Olin's original) is that they aren't associative: it's ambiguous
> whether (bitwise-nand a b c) means (bitwise-nand (bitwise-nand a b) c) or
> (bitwise-nand a (bitwise-nand b c)), and these
Linus Björnstam wrote:
> Your bitwise-nand etc takes more arguments than they have to. They are
> 2-argument procedures according to the spec, which gives you better
> performance
> than the apply-dance you are doing now. Maybe have a bitwise-nand and a
> bitwise-nand*?
Yeah, I did that on purpos
Hi Linus!
Linus Björnstam wrote:
> I have a port of the SRFI code as well, using renaming of guile and srfi-60
> procedures as necessary.
I see! I did mine from scratch, while reading the spec.
> It has the make-bitwise-generator from srfi-151.
Interesting. I thought the generators were part
Hey Guilers!
Since I got a project that uses (potentially large) integers to encode
bits in registers, I was looking at SRFIs that deal with that type of
domain. The most recent entry is SRFI-151, which is in final status.
Since Guile currently doesn't have an implementation of this SRFI, I
Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Frank Terbeck skribis:
[...]
>> The code treats root like a normal user, disregarding the fact that this
>> particular users will be able to access any file or directory no matter
>> the ownership or mode.
>
> Indeed, that’s a bug. I believe th
Hey list,
I used to write installation routines for scheme modules in bourne
shell, that would ask the guile interpreter for (%site-path) etc.
If I call out to guile anyway, I suppose it's more natural to implement
the whole thing in scheme. That's what I did, with the help of ‘ftw’
from the (ice
Mike Gran wrote:
> (And speaking of libraries that will never be used... guile-ncurses
> v1.4 dropped last week. That'll never have any users because the
> intersection in that Venn diagram is too small, consisting mostly of
> me. So, I write it for myself. Maybe I should follow my own
> advice
garj...@garjola.net wrote:
[...]
> Are you aware of similar lectures/videos/screencasts using Guile or more
> generally Scheme?
Andy Wingo did kind of a live hacking session lecture at fscon 2011:
http://videos.fscons.org/fscons/videos/FSCONS2011/guile-free-software-means-of-production/guile-
12 matches
Mail list logo
