On Wed 12 Oct 2011 20:56, "Jose A. Ortega Ruiz" writes:
> On Wed, Oct 12 2011, ri...@happyleptic.org wrote:
>
>> Joking aside, maybe guile is too slow for writing whole apps in it,
>> but it's primary goal is to be an extension language, a companion for
>> another C/C++ program, or at best an orc
On Wed 12 Oct 2011 20:07, Tobias Gerdin writes:
> Is there any way to attach traps to another executing thread from the
> REPL? A use case would be to be able to trap procedures running in the
> main thread when I connect to a Guile started with the --listen
> option.
I have often wanted this, b
-[ Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:22:46PM +0200, Andy Wingo ]
> Much respect to the late Ritchie, but C is a dangerous language that has
> negative impacts on the real world. We need to stop writing code that
> launches the missiles (or, more likely, installs malicious keylogging
> darknets) if your
Couldn't one use vm hooks to perform that?
I mean, a hook that's fed with a list of addresses where to stop if some
condition are met, and that would just wait for the condition to be
cleared before proceeding? Then one could alter these conditions from
another thread?
Hello troll! ;-)
ri...@happyleptic.org skribis:
> I fail to see why Scheme is intrinsically safer than C
Scheme is strongly, though dynamically typed. A string is a string, a
number is a number, and they cannot change types anyhow.
C is weakly, though statically typed. A pointer is a pointer
On Thu 13 Oct 2011 16:26, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hello troll! ;-)
I think that's a bit harsh ;)
> Scheme is strongly, though dynamically typed. A string is a string, a
> number is a number, and they cannot change types anyhow.
As time goes on and I learn more things, I wonde
On 13 October 2011 10:20, Andy Wingo wrote:
> On Thu 13 Oct 2011 16:26, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> Anyway this second, proof side of types, is the side that Scheme does
> not have. C has a stronger story in that regard.
Lack of types in scheme has made me day-dream about learning
Hello!
Andy Wingo skribis:
> Anyway this second, proof side of types, is the side that Scheme does
> not have. C has a stronger story in that regard.
Right; but let’s not oversell C. ;-) Lisps are definitely closer to
automated theorem provers than C. ACL2 and αleanTAP come to mind.
Ludo’.
>> Anyway this second, proof side of types, is the side that Scheme does
>> not have. C has a stronger story in that regard.
>
> Lack of types in scheme has made me day-dream about learning
> ocaml or haskell. My pet peeve about scheme is that, when
> maintaining old code, its very very hard
Your critique about C values that can be made invalid (through lack of
proper initialization or erroneous cast) are of course valid but sounds
quite rhetorical, since in practice, in my experience, this does not
cause many bugs (yet I'm sure you could site several examples of such
bugs). What's of
On 13 Oct 2011, at 18:30, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> On 13 October 2011 10:20, Andy Wingo wrote:
>> On Thu 13 Oct 2011 16:26, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>
>> Anyway this second, proof side of types, is the side that Scheme does
>> not have. C has a stronger story in that regard.
>
> L
Hello,
When an error occurs and you are running under the REPL you are
dropped into the debugger ("Entering a new prompt. .."). This is
useful. But I am wondering if it is not possible to abort this prompt
with a user-defined value? That is, to get hold of the continuation
and applying it to some
Hi,
ri...@happyleptic.org skribis:
> What's of more practical importance to me is that when you
> change a data structure somewhere you can be confident that the compiler
> will spot every other places where your changes require other changes.
> You have not this safety with Scheme, and this is m
On 13 October 2011 13:37, Mike Gran wrote:
>
>>> Anyway this second, proof side of types, is the side that Scheme does
>>> not have. C has a stronger story in that regard.
>>
>> Lack of types in scheme has made me day-dream about learning
>> ocaml or haskell. My pet peeve about scheme is that,
On 13 Oct 2011, at 23:14, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Did you know that Coq would only compile a function when it can prove
> that it terminates? That’s another kind of compiler-supported proof one
> quickly gets used to.
Termination is a non-deducable property. They look at a intuitionistic subset
I use procedure properties for this purpose. I assign a predicate that matches
the return values as a property. Predicates are, of course, the types in Scheme.
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 13, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> Any clue on how to indicate that func returns type 'X' ?
Tobias Gerdin writes:
> When an error occurs and you are running under the REPL you are
> dropped into the debugger ("Entering a new prompt. .."). This is
> useful. But I am wondering if it is not possible to abort this prompt
> with a user-defined value? That is, to get hold of the continuation
Linas Vepstas writes:
> I have no clue why it never occurred to me to use the above paradigm,
> I will definitely start experimenting with it.
>
> Any clue on how to indicate that func returns type 'X' ?
>
> I don't know if you were trying to make this point but: if one were to
> code in the abov
18 matches
Mail list logo
