I’ve expected ‘with-exception-handler’ to behave like ‘catch’, but it
doesn’t.
scheme@(guile-user)> ,use (srfi srfi-34)
scheme@(guile-user)> (with-exception-handler (const "got it") (lambda () (raise
"boom!")))
ice-9/boot-9.scm:106:20: In procedure #:
ice-9/boot-9.scm:106:20: Throw to key `srfi-3
> I will be physically present at the hackathon in Cambridge.
Most Guix developers are not in the US, but it would be great if you
could find interested people in Cambridge.
> I have experience with Guile, but I haven't done much work with package
> management systems before.
That’s not a proble
> One could look at using lots of procedures within procedures as good
> defensive programming style: hiding unnecessary functions.
Here is a related part of SICP [1] which describes this approach.
[1] https://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-10.html#%_sec_1.1.8
(Internal definition
Any Haskellers here?
How would you rewrite the following function in Guile?
foo :: [Int] -> String -> [Int]
foo (x:y:ys) "+" = (x + y):ys
foo (x:y:ys) "-" = (x - y):ys
foo xs num = read num:xs
*Main> foo [] "42"
[42]
*Main> foo [1,2] "42"
[42,1,2]
*Main> foo [1,2] "+"
[3]
*Main> foo [1..10
Hi,
This thread misses the point. Because there are two separate issues:
1. Is it OK to use non-free and centralized services?
I'm not going to explain why it's not OK in detail. But I'd like to
point out that if you use such a service, you encourage others to do
the same.
Here is an example:
Hello,
I have some questions about the '%options' variable. [1]
1. According to the documentation, 'option' accepts four arguments:
'names', 'required-arg?', 'optional-arg?', 'processor' and
"processor is a procedure that takes at least 3 arguments..." [2]
So why do some options (e.g.,
