On Sun, 2020-11-08 at 18:09 +0100, Zelphir Kaltstahl wrote:
> I was hoping for a solution, which could use Elisp in one part of the
> makefile and bash in another part of the makefile.
I apologize that I wasn't following the previous messages in this
thread so I don't have the full context.
Howev
On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 20:54 +0200, joa...@verona.se wrote:
> #make takes a loong time, much more than a normal emacs
> ./autogen.sh && ./configure && make
I'm not familiar with building Emacs, but doesn't its build system
support parallel compilation (couldn't you run "make -j4" or whatever's
appr
On Mon, 2016-03-28 at 10:24 -0400, Thompson, David wrote:
> The environment variable path separator is *not* defined depending on
> the OS. It is up to the programs that interpret these search paths
> to specify what the separator should be. ":" is the most common
> separator, but that is just c
Hi all.
I'd like to make Guile an optional (at build time) feature of my
software. I'm using autoconf/automake of course. This would follow all
the GNU standards, so if you specified --with-guile/--without-guile
those would be obeyed; without any option Guile would be included if it
was found an
Hi all.
I've been experimenting with using Guile as an extension language to GNU
make (optionally built-in of course). I wonder if experts here can give
me their thoughts and opinions.
The "interesting" thing about this integration is that GNU make is
essentially a big string parser, so most of
On Sun, 2011-09-18 at 14:10 +0200, Ludovic Courts wrote:
> Ideally, when Guile support is enabled, GNU make would be turned into
> a Guile extension (a shared library and its companion Scheme module
> that loads it with ‘load-extension’) that would expose make’s
> functionality.
I'm not sure I'm i
On Sun, 2011-09-18 at 14:10 +0200, Ludovic Courts wrote:
> There are two problems I can think of here:
>
> - string unquoting is actually more complex than this (recall that
> ‘object->string’ merely calls ‘write’):
> - ‘scm_c_eval_string’ can return any Scheme objects, some of which
>
On Sun, 2011-09-18 at 17:30 +0200, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
> The double-quote stripping is kind of hacky. I would create a port
> and ‘display’ the result of ‘scm_c_eval_string’ to it.
Thanks for the hints. I've reworked my code to implement a generic "SCM
to make string" function; currently it
On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 02:28 +0200, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
> "Clean" in what way? Everything depends on what the expected (valid) use
> of this facility would be. Could you give some examples (w/ failure cases)?
In make, everything is just words: broken up on whitespace. So for
example, maybe s
On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 21:41 +0200, Hans Aberg wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2011, at 17:14, Paul Smith wrote:
>
> > In make, everything is just words: broken up on whitespace. So for
> > example, maybe someone writes a Guile function that computes a complex
> > set of pr
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 18:17 +0200, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
> () Paul Smith
> () Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:14:34 -0400
>
>In make, everything is just words: broken up on whitespace. So for
>example, maybe someone writes a Guile function that computes a complex
>set of p
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 13:31 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> > In Scheme, w/ SRFI 13, you could express this as:
> >
> > This is not so tricky, i think.
>
> Heh, cute!
Thinking about this more it occurs to me that I will likely need a
module defined for any GNU make specif
I can't find any statements on the Guile pages about portability: what
operating systems does it support, how well are they supported, etc.?
Before I started using Guile I naively assumed it was basically just a
parser and so it was almost trivially very portable. Now that I see all
the advanced
On Fri, 2011-12-02 at 11:41 +0100, ri...@happyleptic.org wrote:
> $ find where-your-files-are -type f -name '*.scm' |
> while read f; do echo '; coding: iso-8859-1' > $f ; done
Boy I _really_ don't think you want to do that.
--
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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!
--
---
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
