Paul,
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 03:05:54PM -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 07:08 +0100, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
> > Best is ‘string-every’ w/ ‘char-set:printing’ directly.
>
> I implemented this change. Seemed to work in both Guile 1.8 and 2.0.3.
Thanks for fixing this.
> Howev
On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 23:17 +0400, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> from Debian testing, and I don't see the problem for test from the
> make.info example - it works ok:
>
> define GUILEIO
> (define (mkclose)
> (close-port MKPORT)
> #f)
>
> #f
> endef
>
> Is
On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 07:08 +0100, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
> Best is ‘string-every’ w/ ‘char-set:printing’ directly.
I implemented this change. Seemed to work in both Guile 1.8 and 2.0.3.
However, please see my recent email to the guile-user list: I'm getting
error output from GNU make compiled
Hi Paul,
Paul Smith skribis:
> How can I write this so it will work both with older Guile 1.8 and also
> with newer Guile 2.0? Or, should I just forget about trying to work
> with Guile <2.0? Most systems I have access to still have Guile 1.8
> though.
In addition to ttn’s suggestions, you ca
() Thien-Thi Nguyen
() Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:01:46 +0100
Use ‘and-map’ with a predicate wrapped around ‘char-set:printing’ directly.
Blech, pre-caffeine posting...
Turns out ‘and-map’ is not documented in the Guile 1.8 Manual. :-/
Better is ‘string-fold’ (w/ the same predicate), then.
Best is
() Paul Smith
() Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:56:19 -0500
;; Printable string (no special characters)
((and (string? x)
(eq? (string-length (string-delete x char-set:printing)) 0))
x)
It's trying to determine if the string contains any non-printable chars.
How can I
On Sun, 2012-01-22 at 22:29 +0400, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> Then a bug report: running make check on taday's make from CVS and with
> guile-2.0 from Debian gives this:
>
> *** work/functions/guile.base Sun Jan 22 22:21:18 2012
> --- work/functions/guile.log Sun Jan 22 22:21:18 2012
> *
Hi Paul,
With all my enthusiasm (and repulsion for an ugly Guile 2.0 bug on SPARC
waiting to be fixed), I came up with the following patch to illustrate
an addition that could be worthwhile.
One can write stuff like:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
%.y: %.z
Hi Paul,
I see Make’s configure.in reads this:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
# For some strange reason, at least on Ubuntu, each version of Guile
# comes with it's own PC file so we have to specify them as individual
# packages. Ugh.
AS_IF([test "x$with_guile"
On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 23:42 +0100, Ludovic Courts wrote:
> It works as intended ;-) but hits a segfault fixed with this patch:
Doh! I added a feature to make that allows you to define functions
separately (previously all functions had to be predefined in the static
table in functions.c) and moved
Hi Paul,
Paul Smith skribis:
> On Sun, 2012-01-15 at 23:02 +0100, Ludovic Courts wrote:
>> And thanks for the great news! :-)
>
> I promoted the feature to GNU make CVS (I know, still CVS!!) on
> Savannah. I hope to generate a test dist file sometime this week. I'll
> email when it's availabl
On Sun, 2012-01-15 at 23:02 +0100, Ludovic Courts wrote:
> And thanks for the great news! :-)
I promoted the feature to GNU make CVS (I know, still CVS!!) on
Savannah. I hope to generate a test dist file sometime this week. I'll
email when it's available if people want to take a look.
> Paul S
Hi Paul,
And thanks for the great news! :-)
Paul Smith skribis:
> On Sun, 2012-01-15 at 09:51 +0100, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
[...]
>> - The ‘#t => t’ distinguishes the symbol t from others, which feels wrong.
>> I suggest #t => ""; #f => error.
>
> Hm. The problem with this is that we can'
On Sun, 2012-01-15 at 21:11 +0100, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
>[desirability of #t => "t" and #f => ""]
>
> Thanks. Now that i understand the motivation, i think the current
> way is fine. You should move this excellent example into the docs.
OK I'll try to find a realistic example to make thi
() Paul Smith
() Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:12:29 -0500
> - The ‘#t => t’ distinguishes the symbol t from others, which feels wrong.
> I suggest #t => ""; #f => error.
[desirability of #t => "t" and #f => ""]
Thanks. Now that i understand the motivation, i think the current
way is fine. Y
On Sun, 2012-01-15 at 09:51 +0100, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
> - In Scheme, it is customary to say "procedure" instead of "function".
> I suggest 8.13.2 Interfaces from Guile to `make' explicitly state that
> (for those unfamiliar w/ Scheme), and then liberally specify "function"
> for Make fun
Oh yeah, i forgot: I think Make vars should not be
accessed by a Scheme string, but rather a symbol:
(define (gmk-var v)
(or (symbol? v) (error "not a symbol:" v))
(gmk-expand (format #f "$(~a)" (obj-to-str v
() Paul Smith
() Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:55:05 -0500
Any suggestions [...] will be welcome
I looked at the doc file and have these suggestions:
- In Scheme, it is customary to say "procedure" instead of "function".
I suggest 8.13.2 Interfaces from Guile to `make' explicitly state that
(for t
Hi all. I'm about to commit initial support for Guile to GNU make. I'm
interested in any comments you may have on the implementation (there is
still time to make changes before the next release of GNU make).
I'm committed to leaving Guile as an optional component for now. As a
result I'm not re
19 matches
Mail list logo
