Re: Guile foreign object interface

2017-03-09 Thread Thien-Thi Nguyen
() David Kastrup () Thu, 09 Mar 2017 00:00:48 +0100 [...] rather than [...] fork Guile 1.8 in order to actually have some dependable functionality to base other work on. I intend to maintain 1.8 for the time being. More precisely, i seek to apply bug fixes, improve documentation (both me

Re: Lilypond speed (was Re: How to make GNU Guile more successful)

2017-03-09 Thread Thien-Thi Nguyen
() Thomas Morley () Thu, 9 Mar 2017 00:17:12 +0100 Btw, I've improved my local setup to be able to test lilypond more quickly with different guile versions. Though I wasn't able to compile 1.8.8, neither from the repository Strange, because the repo should have... nor from the tar

Re: Guile foreign object interface

2017-03-09 Thread Ludovic Courtès
David Kastrup skribis: > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> David Kastrup skribis: >> >>> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: >>> Andy Wingo skribis: > I am not so sure about about this one. I think it's not accurate to > characterize beginning to replace a 25-yea

Re: Lilypond speed (was Re: How to make GNU Guile more successful)

2017-03-09 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hello, Thomas Morley skribis: > Btw, I've improved my local setup to be able to test lilypond more > quickly with different guile versions. Though I wasn't able to compile > 1.8.8, neither from the repository nor from the tarball downloaded > from > https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/download/ >

Re: Lilypond speed (was Re: How to make GNU Guile more successful)

2017-03-09 Thread Paul
On 03/09/2017 07:13 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: What fraction of the Scheme code being run for this benchmark is pre-compiled (as a .go file)? I don't think any of LilyPond's Scheme code is pre-compiled at this point... Yep, as David Kastrup wrote in the "GNU Guile 2.1.7 released (beta)" thre

Re: The status of JIT compiler of Guile

2017-03-09 Thread Andy Wingo
On Thu 09 Mar 2017 07:59, Nala Ginrut writes: > I've discussed with @Ludo, I think it's better to integrate it as a > plugin, and could be maintained separately. > It is possible to have some hooks in Guile VM to enable certain > optimizing, but I don't think we have it now, right? This sounds l

Re: Guile foreign object interface

2017-03-09 Thread Eli Zaretskii
> From: l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) > Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 13:09:40 +0100 > > >> As an aside, please keep the tone friendly as is the norm on this > >> mailing list. > > > > Disagreement is not the same as unfriendliness. > > I agree. However I found the tone of your messages patronizing an

Re: Guile foreign object interface

2017-03-09 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Eli Zaretskii skribis: >> From: l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) >> Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 13:09:40 +0100 >> >> >> As an aside, please keep the tone friendly as is the norm on this >> >> mailing list. >> > >> > Disagreement is not the same as unfriendliness. >> >> I agree. However I found the to

Re: Guile foreign object interface

2017-03-09 Thread Eli Zaretskii
> From: l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) > Cc: guile-user@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 18:26:09 +0100 > > > FYI, I've communicated (and occasionally disagreed) with David for > > many years, and I can assure you that you see something that simply > > isn't there. He sometimes uses such "colorfu

Re: Guile foreign object interface

2017-03-09 Thread Andy Wingo
On Thu 09 Mar 2017 19:31, Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) >> Cc: guile-user@gnu.org >> Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 18:26:09 +0100 >> >> I’m all for personal style, but I’m against passive-aggressive or downright >> aggressive style. > > That's what I'm trying to tell you

Re: Guile foreign object interface

2017-03-09 Thread David Kastrup
Thien-Thi Nguyen writes: > () David Kastrup > () Thu, 09 Mar 2017 00:00:48 +0100 > >[...] rather than [...] fork Guile 1.8 in order to actually >have some dependable functionality to base other work on. > > I intend to maintain 1.8 for the time being. More precisely, i > seek to apply b

Re: Guile foreign object interface

2017-03-09 Thread David Kastrup
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > David Kastrup skribis: > >> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: >> >>> I’m sure we already discussed it and then I forgot, but would >>> anything prevent the use of specific C++ allocators in this case? >>> The STL data structures could be allocated on

Re: How to make GNU Guile more successful

2017-03-09 Thread Vítor De Araújo
Hi, I'm relatively new to Guile and new to this list, but I saw this thread in the archives and I'd like to make some comments. First, I think it would be nice to have a Guile wiki, in the likes of cliki.net. A publicly-editable reference place where people can share knowledge about Guile and Gui

Re: The status of JIT compiler of Guile

2017-03-09 Thread Nala Ginrut
Hi Andy! I have similar idea, TJIT could be an optional package and people may choose to install it seperately. We may choose to integrate it when we thought it's mature enough. In a conservative way, how about we keep the current status, say, I'll keep maintaining guilt-tjit as separated project,

Re: Guile foreign object interface

2017-03-09 Thread Eli Zaretskii
> From: Andy Wingo > Cc: l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès), guile-user@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 20:56:09 +0100 > > > That's what I'm trying to tell you: there's no aggression. > > I understand that different people can have different reactions and it's > great that you can look through "st