Re: salutations and web scraping

2012-01-29 Thread Catonano
Andy, Il giorno 25 gennaio 2012 09:57, Andy Wingo ha scritto: > There is no workaround in the source, no. > > Ian Price has a workaround: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2011-11/msg00011.html > > We need to get that into Guile. > Should I want to try to follow this issue and

Errors using Guile 2.0 vs. Guile 1.8

2012-01-29 Thread Paul Smith
Hi all. To test my GNU make Guile integration I was using guile 1.8 which is what my distribution provided. To test the newer Guile 2.x I downloaded the Guile 2.0.3 release and built it and installed in an alternate location (/opt/guile). I compiled GNU make using that version, and all the tests

Re: Guile support in GNU make

2012-01-29 Thread Paul Smith
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

Re: Errors using Guile 2.0 vs. Guile 1.8

2012-01-29 Thread Thien-Thi Nguyen
() Paul Smith () Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:54:18 -0500 $ cat g1.mk define show (define (show s) (display s) (newline)) endef $(info define display) $(guile $(show)) $(info after define) $(g

Re: Errors using Guile 2.0 vs. Guile 1.8

2012-01-29 Thread Paul Smith
On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 22:18 +0100, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote: > () Paul Smith > () Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:54:18 -0500 > >$ cat g1.mk >define show >(define (show s) > (display s) > (newline)) >endef >$(info define disp

Re: Errors using Guile 2.0 vs. Guile 1.8

2012-01-29 Thread Mark H Weaver
Hi Paul, Paul Smith writes: > To test my GNU make Guile integration I was using guile 1.8 which is > what my distribution provided. To test the newer Guile 2.x I downloaded > the Guile 2.0.3 release and built it and installed in an alternate > location (/opt/guile). I compiled GNU make using th

Re: Errors using Guile 2.0 vs. Guile 1.8

2012-01-29 Thread Mark H Weaver
Replying to myself... > The relevant difference is that in Guile 1.8, (define foo ...) returns > #, but in Guile 2 it returns the 'variable' object for > 'foo'. I actually think that this qualifies as a bug in Guile, so please don't depend on this behavior. Ideally, (define foo ...) should alway

Re: Errors using Guile 2.0 vs. Guile 1.8

2012-01-29 Thread Paul Smith
On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 17:57 -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote: > Replying to myself... > > > The relevant difference is that in Guile 1.8, (define foo ...) returns > > #, but in Guile 2 it returns the 'variable' object for > > 'foo'. > > I actually think that this qualifies as a bug in Guile, so please

Re: Errors using Guile 2.0 vs. Guile 1.8

2012-01-29 Thread Mark H Weaver
Paul Smith writes: > On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 17:57 -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote: >> Replying to myself... >> >> > The relevant difference is that in Guile 1.8, (define foo ...) returns >> > #, but in Guile 2 it returns the 'variable' object for >> > 'foo'. >> >> I actually think that this qualifies

Re: Errors using Guile 2.0 vs. Guile 1.8

2012-01-29 Thread Paul Smith
On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 20:16 -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote: > I think it would almost certainly be fine to map variable objects to > "", because I can't imagine why anyone would ever want to return a > variable object to 'make'. OK, I made this change. Thanks! -- ---