Hello! I'm a bit confused by this conversation. Do you want to merge this code into Guile, or into the reference implementation of SRFI 64?
If it's into Guile, I can't speak for the maintainers, but I think we would love to have it. We do like supporting SRFIs. Thanks, Noah On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Sunjoong Lee <sunjo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Now, srfi-64.scm works on Guile 1.8 and 2.0. > > There are two different thins; > 1) Guile 1.8 does not support nested block comments. > So, it does not pass srfi-64-test.scm test suite. > But, comments are comments - not problem. > 2) srfi-64.scm on Guile 2.0 can catch and report the source form > like this; > source-file: "srfi-64-test.scm" > source-line: 129 > source-form: (test-equal "1.1.1. Very simple" (quote (("a") ("b") () > () () (1 1 0 0 0))) (t)) > srfi-64.scm on Guile 1.8 does not support it yet > because I'm a newbie of scheme and don't understand Guile yet. > I hope someone fix these problems; > a) On Guile 2.0, I used (datum->syntax form (syntax->datum form)) > b) On Guile 2.0, I used (assq-ref (syntax-source form) 'filename) > > 2012/4/14 Sunjoong Lee <sunjo...@gmail.com> >> >> 2012/4/14 Per Bothner <p...@bothner.com> >>> >>> This is nice. It would be great if the Guile port would be merged >>> into the reference implementation, presumably using cond-expand. >>> That way bug-fixes or changes in one could be more easily be >>> merged into the other. > > > Now, srfi-64.scm works on Chicken 4.7. > > Per Bothner adviced me it's better to merge it into the reference > implementation. > I was not convinced to check right merge. > So, I ported it for Chicken 4.7 and Guile 1.8 - it works now. > Right merge? I'm not sure yet but hope so. >