Kristian Lein-Mathisen writes:
> Hi,
>
> Indeed. We could malloc and set-finalizer! and that should work and be
> safe. However, as far as I understand, this approach has some disadvantages:
>
> - malloc is relatively slow compared to chicken's internal allocation (eg
> make-string) that uses
Kristian Lein-Mathisen writes:
> From what I gather, there is no way to allocate memory and return a pointer
> to it, safely, in CHICKEN.
> Won't the garbage collector potentially overwrite whatever region was
> allocated since it has no way of knowing it?
There's allocate from chicken.memory
Andrew Mack writes:
> Hello all, I'm attempting to port the sdl-mixer egg (originally by
> Christian Kellermann) from 4 to 5. I think I've made most of the
> necessary changes, but I'm running into a bit of an issue and would
> greatly appreciate some help troubleshooting.
Hi, Andrew!
>
>
Matt Welland writes:
> With Chicken 4 I'm seeing a pretty high impact on startup time from
> (declare (uses foo.import)). I think that will be less of a problem when I
> switch from using * for my export lists to only the procedures that need to
> be exported. However I was very surprised to
Ricardo Gabriel Herdt writes:
> Am 19.10.2019 14:18 schrieb felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com:
>> The exact behaviour of re-
>> entering a continuation captured during execution of "map" is, I think,
>> dependent on implementation details (there may be a note about this in
>> the
>> SRFI-1 document
Théo Cavignac writes:
> Erratum: I think it did fix the bug, I just misunderstood a different
> error. Is this modification of coops config viable for upstream or should I
> find a way to grant thread safety in my own code ?
>
Great!
I see Felix is going to add the -disable-interrupts flag to
Marco Maggi writes:
> Peter Bex wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 08:23:51AM +0200, Marco Maggi wrote:
>
> 1. Is there a way to print to stderr the list of consulted ".types"
> files? I do not see such an option in:
>
>http://wiki.call-cc.org/man/5/Using%20the%20compiler
Giving
Marco Maggi writes:
> Ciao,
>
> I am getting a segmentation fault when I compile with "-O5" a shared
> library andits test programs with"-O5" (CHICKEN 5.1,
> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu). I need some directions on how to debug this
> problem. I am compiling with:
>
>
Peter Bex writes:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 09:03:33AM +0200, Marco Maggi wrote:
>> Ciao,
>>
>> with CHICKEN 5.1.0, is the following correct:
>>
>> (import (scheme) (chicken base) (chicken condition))
>>
>> (call/cc
>> (lambda (escape)
>>
Joe Anonimist writes:
> Hello,
>
>
> I am trying to build a simple arithmetic expression evaluator using
> Comparse. I have got to the part of the grammar that looks like this
>
>
>
>
> ::= '*'
> | '/'
> |
>
>
> ie it is recursive. Here is my code so far:
>
Hi,
Yes, it's recursive,
Hello,
Everything looks OK here.
Operating system: Linux 4.15.0-34-generic #37~16.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Tue Aug 28
10:44:06 UTC 2018 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Hardware platform: x86-64
C Compiler: gcc (Ubuntu 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.10) 5.4.0 20160609
Installation works?: yes
Tests work?: yes
Installation of
Hi Jörg,
Jörg F. Wittenberger writes:
[...]
> Brings back the question: how would I tell chicken to temporarily consult
> other locations for egg distributions? E.g. I'd like to use chicken-install
> in a fresh location outside the source directory of the egg to check that
> the whole
Martin Schneeweis writes:
> Hi,
>
> back at playing with types - my current impression is that the compiler
> is a little too optimistic (goal: get as much warnings as
> possible - optimizations are no concern here).
>
[snip]
Hi Martin,
There are known limitations in the type checker
Evan Hanson writes:
> Anyway, to get a string that *looks* like a keyword, the easiest option
> is probably to go via the written representation with something like:
>
>(format "~s" foo:)
>
> However note that this is sensitive to the keyword-style parameter, as
> hinted
Hello,
Currently symbol->string strips any keyword prefixes when applied to
keywords (e.g. (symbol->string 'foo:) returns "foo"). Is this correct
behavior?
Is there a way to get the full symbol name (i.e. #:foo -> "#:foo", and
foo: -> "foo:")?
Little background follows..
I was trying to define
Felix writes:
From: megane megan...@gmail.com
Subject: [Chicken-users] Question about procedure type annotations
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:54:09 +0300
Hi!
Below is an example that fails.
Is this expected behavior? It feels a bit redundant to use 'assume' for
the parameter
Hello.
Consider this example:
(: apply1 (forall (a b) (procedure ((procedure (#!rest a) b) (list-of a)) b)))
(define (apply1 f args)
(apply f args))
(cond-expand
(compiling
(compiler-typecase (list 'a 2 3)
((list-of (or symbol fixnum)) #t
(cond-expand
(compiling
Hi!
Below is an example that fails.
Is this expected behavior? It feels a bit redundant to use 'assume' for
the parameter 'a' as the type for the procedure has already been
declared.
(: foo (fixnum - undefined))
(define (foo a)
(cond-expand
(compiling
(compiler-typecase a
(fixnum
Hi.
I've been toying with the mailbox egg. AFAIK there's currently no way to
wait messages from multiple mailboxes at the same time.
Is there a reason this is not supported?
I made a quick hack that seems to not break immediately. There's a new
procedure `mailbox-receive-many!' that takes a
Hi all.
Here's a short discussion I had with Kon Lovett. I'm forwarding it here
for anyone interested. With Kon's kind permission, of course.
---
megane writes:
Kon Lovett writes:
On Oct 4, 2012, at 12:50 PM, megane wrote:
Kon Lovett writes:
On Oct 4, 2012, at 11:45 AM, megane wrote
Hi there,
I've been playing with the F-operator egg a bit. Specifically, I've made
some simple tests using the %shift/%reset construction. These are the
ones that avoid calling any dynamic wind thunks when calling a
continuation that's not the current one or sth.
Now, does anybody have any idea
Hello,
I'm trying to define a module in a separate compilation.
Here's a simple example that I can't get to compile:
File: src/myutil.scm
-
(module myutil
*
(import chicken scheme)
(define (foo)
(print myutil foo)))
(define (bar) (print myutil bar))
File: src/main.scm
-
;;
22 matches
Mail list logo