Hi,
Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> to give you an idea, i have appended the output of running the
> `compile-command' (see the Local Variables at eof).
Thanks, I have a better understanding now.
> towards this end, another approach is to integrate hobbit and gcc.
> an interprete
() [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès)
() Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:23:55 +0200
I'm not sure I fully understand what `check-r6rs-library'
does (and I don't have `(ice-9 accumulate)' also...).
to give you an idea, i have appended the output of running the
`compile-command' (see the Local Variables
Hi!
Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> sounds reasonable. below is a work-in-progress sketch
> that dreamers (-: or insomniacs who want to dream) might
> find interesting. the manifesto is still bubbling, but
> only time will tell...
I'm not sure I fully understand what `check-r6rs
() Keith Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
() Sun, 7 Oct 2007 00:05:13 -0400
Consensus - same sense or feeling (<-Latin sentire)
Concensus - if that were a word,
it might mean same head-count
thanks; i stand corrected.
Anyway carry on. Or muddle on. My opinion means
little
> From: Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> for me, it means everyone interested should say what they would
> (or would not) do and then if there is concensus (after some
> refinement), i follow. if there is no concensus, i muddle
> through the best i can (as always). from the sound of the
() Keith Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
() Fri, 5 Oct 2007 19:47:50 -0400
It would be heartening to read that the maintainer
of the fork wants to build toward the other branch
were it not for the cynical suspicion that that
"harmonize" is like "bi-pertisan"; it means everyone
should do
> From: Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> that is, `#:use-modules X Y Z' would be exactly equivalent
> to `#:use-module X #:use-module Y #:use-module Z'.
>
> quantitatively, for N upstream (used) modules, this would result
> in N-1 fewer keywords required in the `define-module' form.
>
>
From: Clinton Ebadi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: rfc (define-module ... #:use-modules ...)
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:14:22 -0400
>
> I would prefer something with the syntax
>
> #:use-modules ((a b c)
>((d e f) #:select (x y z)))
>
that's d
From: Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: rfc (define-module ... #:use-modules ...)
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:10:45 +0200
>
> what do people think of this syntatic sugar?
it's ugly and unlispish
Klaus Schilling
___
Guile-
() Mike Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
() Thu, 4 Oct 2007 08:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
1. The lack of parallelism between the (use-modules)
procedure and the #:use-module form has always bothered me.
in fact, this was one of the motivations for the proposal.
others were: typing laziness, r6rs-envy (half-
() Clinton Ebadi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
() Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:14:22 -0400
I would prefer something with the syntax
#:use-modules ((a b c)
((d e f) #:select (x y z)))
that was actually my first inclination. i suppose this way there is
also a better congruence in the diffe
() [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès)
() Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:29:38 +0200
(i) Emacs would have a hard time indenting this ;-)
perhaps (for now). some emacs hacker will DTRT i'm sure.
(ii) given that it provides little benefits, I think I'd
be more inclined to not change anything.
fair
Hi,
Mike Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2. It would then be a bit easier to create a mapping to the r6rs
> library form. In r6rs libraries, you can include multiple libraries
> with one "import" command.
IMO, this argument doesn't count because that would *definitely* not be
the hardest par
Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> currently:
> (define-module (foo)
> #:use-module (a b c)
> #:use-module ((d e f) #:select (x y z))
> #:export (bar))
>
> proposed:
> (define-module (foo)
> #:use-modules
> (a b c)
> ((d e f) #:select (x y z))
> #:export
Hi,
Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> currently:
> (define-module (foo)
> #:use-module (a b c)
> #:use-module ((d e f) #:select (x y z))
> #:export (bar))
>
> proposed:
> (define-module (foo)
> #:use-modules
> (a b c)
> ((d e f) #:select (x y z))
> #:e
--- Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> proposed:
> (define-module (foo)
> #:use-modules
> (a b c)
> ((d e f) #:select (x y z))
> #:export (bar))
>
> that is, `#:use-modules X Y Z' would be exactly equivalent
> to `#:use-module X #:use-module Y #:use-module Z'.
>
I l
currently:
(define-module (foo)
#:use-module (a b c)
#:use-module ((d e f) #:select (x y z))
#:export (bar))
proposed:
(define-module (foo)
#:use-modules
(a b c)
((d e f) #:select (x y z))
#:export (bar))
that is, `#:use-modules X Y Z' would be exactly equivalent
t
17 matches
Mail list logo
