[Chicken-users] Wierd behaviour of process.
In the middle of the Scheme binding I wrote for mooix, I call process (from posix) for IPC. The system is, in total, very complex; so much so that I don't even know where to start to at making a pared-down example. So, I'll describe the behaviour. I run process in the same way (see http://paste.lisp.org/display/35085 for my code; at least, that's what it looked like after I had hacked it for a while trying to solve this problem) quite a number of times. At one point, process calls a Perl script that is set sticky (not that I think that matters, but there you are) that returns no output at all. process correctly sees it as returning no output. The *next* call to process appends a string, call it StringX, to the real output of the process it calls, for no apparent reason. StringX happens to be the mooix-internal name of the object whose mooix method was the Perl script I mentioned. I have no idea where it's coming from in this interaction; it's not passed through process at any point that I can see. The really wierd part: This only happens if the second argument to process is filled. I was filling it with (list "") just to avoid calling the shell (security warm-fuzzies). But now I've had to take that out, so this will work. This may very well *not* be a Chicken issue: as I said, the system is very complex and, in particular, hacks a number of libc calls, including exec*. However, I've never seen this behaviour before, using either C or Perl code in mooix, so... *shrug* Any help/suggestions/things to try welcome, although I do have a workaround. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/ ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Mac OS X: chicken-setup's access to fink-installed libraries
Stephen, I haven't tried this in a few months, but last time I checked, chicken will use any options you provided at ./configure time. So for example you could probably say ./configure CFLAGS="-O2 -L/sw/lib -I/sw/include" and the options should be used automatically in the future. Some people have other ways of passing arguments to configure (there was a discussion about it on the list) but for me that way always works. This assumes you -always- want /sw to be looked at, which may be a problem if you also install stuff in /usr/local/lib occasionally. Otherwise I have been using the "-c" option to chicken-setup as you have found. On 1/11/07, Stephen C. Gilardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I found an option to chicken-setup itself: "-csc-option" (abbreviated "-c"). It works: # chicken-setup -c "-I/sw/include -L/sw/lib" numbers gunzip -c ../numbers.egg | tar xf - /usr/local/bin/csc -feature compiling-extension -I/sw/include -L/ sw/lib -s -O2 -d1 numbers-base.scm -lgmp -X easyffi Warning: invalid compiler option `-I/sw/include' - ignored Warning: invalid compiler option `-L/sw/lib' - ignored rm -fr /usr/local/lib/chicken/1/numbers-base.so cp -r numbers-base.so /usr/local/lib/chicken/1/numbers-base.so cp -r numbers.scm /usr/local/lib/chicken/1/numbers.scm cp -r numbers.html /usr/local/lib/chicken/1/numbers.html * The following documentation files have been installed in /usr/local/ lib/chicken/1/index.html: * numbers.html rm -fr numbers.egg-dir It would be nice if options like that that I'll nearly always want to specify could be provided via an environment variable rather than always typed. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] [Ann] Next meeting of the MSLUG
The next meeting of the Montreal Scheme/Lisp User Group will be on January 17, 2007. Talk: Adventures in Open Source Erlang, by Yariv Sadan. When my blog posts about Erlang started receiving attention on reddit.com, I realized that my claims that Erlang could be a great web development language weren't compelling enough in the absence of a web develpment framework. This, together with my personal needs, lead me to create ErlyWeb, an open source web development framework for Erlang. In this presentation, I will talk about my discovery of Erlang, the development of ErlyWeb, and why I think Erlang's popularity will grow in the future. http://schemeway.dyndns.org/mslug Don't miss this talk! Dominique Boucher ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: Re : [Chicken-users] thread-sleep! for less than a second
Hi, That was something that I could not notice either at first. Another issue for me is that I want to declare fixnum when all other procedures are fixnum arithmetic. So, I wished thread-sleep-millis! Any workaround for this? Maybe making a tiny egg for this? Daishi On 1/13/07, minh thu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 2007/1/12, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Jan 12, 2007, at 1:36 PM, minh thu wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Question again, my apologies ;) > > > > Is it possible to have a thread sleep some milliseconds ? > > thread-sleep! (the seconds do not need to be a whole number) Tks, I didn't see it in the chicken doc or srfi-18. thu ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re : [Chicken-users] thread-sleep! for less than a second
2007/1/12, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Jan 12, 2007, at 1:36 PM, minh thu wrote: > Hi, > > Question again, my apologies ;) > > Is it possible to have a thread sleep some milliseconds ? thread-sleep! (the seconds do not need to be a whole number) Tks, I didn't see it in the chicken doc or srfi-18. thu ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] thread-sleep! for less than a second
On Jan 12, 2007, at 1:36 PM, minh thu wrote: Hi, Question again, my apologies ;) Is it possible to have a thread sleep some milliseconds ? thread-sleep! (the seconds do not need to be a whole number) I want to have a thread poll xlib for some events but not in tight loop neither only every second (thus something in between). I guess also than thread-yield! gives cpu to other threads but still makes a tight loop in case the other threads want to sleep! I can't use c sleeping function, otherwise the whole chicken runtime will go to bed. Is there any workaround ? Maybe I can add the feature to chicken itself ? Thanks, thu ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] thread-sleep! for less than a second
Hi, Question again, my apologies ;) Is it possible to have a thread sleep some milliseconds ? I want to have a thread poll xlib for some events but not in tight loop neither only every second (thus something in between). I guess also than thread-yield! gives cpu to other threads but still makes a tight loop in case the other threads want to sleep! I can't use c sleeping function, otherwise the whole chicken runtime will go to bed. Is there any workaround ? Maybe I can add the feature to chicken itself ? Thanks, thu ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re : Re : [Chicken-users] various questions
2007/1/12, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Jan 12, 2007, at 12:31 AM, felix winkelmann wrote: > On 1/11/07, minh thu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > Could you elaborate on this? Do you want to let the user specify >> the >> > actual record type, or it's contents? >> The record type. >> Say mailbox use a list-based queue implementation (so 'mailbox' in >> the >> following sentences is a hypothetical one). >> Could I provide another implementation of a queue to be used by >> mailbox? >> Or could the author of mailbox make it possible by providing >> different >> implementations ? >> I don't know module systems but maybe my question is wheter we can >> parametrize a module when loading (instanciating ?) it. >> > > Well, this is what is called "functors" in SML, for example: > parameterized > modules. You provide a module implementing the operations on > a specific datatype and pass this module to your mailbox module. > A (very basic) implementation of such functors is in the "lexmod" egg: > > http://chicken.wiki.br/lexmod The 'levenshtein' egg has a generic algorithm, it works w/ strings or vectors. It uses the facilities of 'procedure-surface' to provide the appropriate procedures. Thanks for pointing this. I'll try for the moment to stick to somewhat standard Sheme because I'm fairly noob and don't want to learn another library (in addition of Scheme and chicken specifics). Probably later though. thu ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: Re : [Chicken-users] various questions
Kon Lovett scripsit: > It uses the facilities of 'procedure-surface' to provide the > appropriate procedures. Can you explain 'procedure-surface' in a little more detail, please? It looks like just the thing for me, but it has too many procedures and too few explanations. Thanks. -- On the Semantic Web, it's too hard to prove John Cowan[EMAIL PROTECTED] you're not a dog. --Bill de hOra http://www.ccil.org/~cowan ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: Re : [Chicken-users] various questions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Jan 12, 2007, at 12:31 AM, felix winkelmann wrote: On 1/11/07, minh thu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Could you elaborate on this? Do you want to let the user specify the > actual record type, or it's contents? The record type. Say mailbox use a list-based queue implementation (so 'mailbox' in the following sentences is a hypothetical one). Could I provide another implementation of a queue to be used by mailbox? Or could the author of mailbox make it possible by providing different implementations ? I don't know module systems but maybe my question is wheter we can parametrize a module when loading (instanciating ?) it. Well, this is what is called "functors" in SML, for example: parameterized modules. You provide a module implementing the operations on a specific datatype and pass this module to your mailbox module. A (very basic) implementation of such functors is in the "lexmod" egg: http://chicken.wiki.br/lexmod The 'levenshtein' egg has a generic algorithm, it works w/ strings or vectors. It uses the facilities of 'procedure-surface' to provide the appropriate procedures. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkWnumwACgkQJJNoeGe+5O6M5QCcCe8eIhP+tcKlzdpRrw5XM0rn 4JsAn1fEfwkMTLvDx9nqUV2fzYPmzr/Y =D0Km -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re : [Chicken-users] writing from a thread issue
2007/1/12, felix winkelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 1/12/07, minh thu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> (define (poll-for-event)
> (define (poll) ((write "in poll-for-event") ; not shown
That line above has a "(" to much. The arguments become
evaluated, but before the write is executed, the call to "poll"
is. The write is in operator position and might be executed
after the "(poll)".
Just remove the parens around the forms in "poll".
cheers,
felix
Oh thanks, I've looked at something like this but didn't find (so stupid).
And sorry too,
thu
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] writing from a thread issue
On 1/12/07, minh thu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(define (poll-for-event)
(define (poll) ((write "in poll-for-event") ; not shown
That line above has a "(" to much. The arguments become
evaluated, but before the write is executed, the call to "poll"
is. The write is in operator position and might be executed
after the "(poll)".
Just remove the parens around the forms in "poll".
cheers,
felix
(newline) ; shown
(flush-output) ; changes nothing
(thread-sleep! 1)
(poll)))
(poll))
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] writing from a thread issue
Hi, I made a script of my session to exhibit the problem: No output is given by the thread but the blank lines. Thanks for any help, thu Follows the output of my session (in a console in linux). $ cat weird.scm ;;; weird.scm ;; ;; 12.01.2007 ;; ;; Exhibits non-writing from a thread. ;; (declare (uses srfi-18)) (define (poll-for-event) (define (poll) ((write "in poll-for-event") ; not shown (newline) ; shown (flush-output) ; changes nothing (thread-sleep! 1) (poll))) (poll)) (define (go) (thread-start! poll-for-event)) $ csc -s weird.scm $ csi -require-extension weird ) ___ (__/_) /) ,/) / (/ _ (/_ _ __ // )__(_(__/(___(/_/ (_ (__) Version 2, Build 3 - linux-unix-gnu-x86 - [ dload ptables ] (c)2000-2005 Felix L. Winkelmann ; loading ./weird.so ... #;1> (go) # #;2> $ # I've done a ctrl-c. Notice the blank lines after #;2> ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] RedHat and Debian packages
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 12:56:56PM +0200, Harri Haataja wrote: > In some cases you > can make repositories outside the vendor's and add them to something > like apt. If they're in sync to the right versions it might even work. The Adamantix project tries to do its best to create quality packages. Packages provided for Debian and other distributions by Adamantix are supported. So if something is not working, you can report it to the mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED], subscribers only though). Commercial support for these packages is also available. All fixes in Adamantix packages immediately go upstream (i.e. to Felix in most cases). The Adamantix project also contributes eggs to the Chicken project (like the magic egg, but more are to follow). > Getting a friendly maintainer on the "inside" (a Debian developer, for > example) is probably a more reliable approach. If Debian or any other distribution likes to use the Adamantix packages, then that is fine of course. It is after all free software. Integrating these packages in Debian means that only Debian users benefit from this effort. My idea is to support as many distributions as possible, not only Debian. That way this effort benefits users of Adamantix, Ubuntu, Progeny, Knoppix, etc., etc. as well, not just users of Debian. And it has the following advantages for Chicken users: This effort makes it easier and more reliable to: - Install Chicken (there are a few distributions with Chicken packages) - Install Chicken eggs (only available in Adamantix AFAIK) - Install Chicken applications (available nowhere, except for a few in Adamantix). Applications require proper egg dependencies to work. - To distribute Chicken applications (the same infrastructure can be used). - To support multiple platforms (because the same Chicken and egg versions with the same features are available on all supported platforms). - Provide the same high quality to all platforms. And all feedback results in improvements for ALL supported distributions at the same time (as well as upstream). Groetjes, Peter. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: Re : [Chicken-users] various questions
2007/1/12, felix winkelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On 1/11/07, minh thu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Could you elaborate on this? Do you want to let the user specify the > > actual record type, or it's contents? > The record type. > Say mailbox use a list-based queue implementation (so 'mailbox' in the > following sentences is a hypothetical one). > Could I provide another implementation of a queue to be used by mailbox? > Or could the author of mailbox make it possible by providing different > implementations ? > I don't know module systems but maybe my question is wheter we can > parametrize a module when loading (instanciating ?) it. > Well, this is what is called "functors" in SML, for example: parameterized modules. You provide a module implementing the operations on a specific datatype and pass this module to your mailbox module. A (very basic) implementation of such functors is in the "lexmod" egg: http://chicken.wiki.br/lexmod cheers, felix Thank you. For the thread/print issue, I will retry and maybe post the offending code (after cleaning it of irrevlevent things). thu ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Mac OS X: chicken-setup's access to fink-installed libraries
On 1/11/07, Stephen C. Gilardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It would be nice if options like that that I'll nearly always want to specify could be provided via an environment variable rather than always typed. Feature request: - "chicken" automatically includes options specified in the environment variable "CHICKEN_OPTIONS". Can we extend that mechanism to "csc" "csi" and "chicken-setup"? Environment variable names that follow the pattern would be "CSC_OPTIONS" "CSI_OPTIONS" and "CHICKEN_SETUP_OPTIONS". In this case, I would specify "CSC_OPTIONS". CSI_OPTIONS is already available, and CHICKEN_SETUP_OPTIONS has been added recently (available in the darcs repository and the current development snapshot). I'll add CSC_OPTIONS, though. Thanks for the suggestion. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: Re : [Chicken-users] various questions
On 1/11/07, minh thu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Could you elaborate on this? Do you want to let the user specify the > actual record type, or it's contents? The record type. Say mailbox use a list-based queue implementation (so 'mailbox' in the following sentences is a hypothetical one). Could I provide another implementation of a queue to be used by mailbox? Or could the author of mailbox make it possible by providing different implementations ? I don't know module systems but maybe my question is wheter we can parametrize a module when loading (instanciating ?) it. Well, this is what is called "functors" in SML, for example: parameterized modules. You provide a module implementing the operations on a specific datatype and pass this module to your mailbox module. A (very basic) implementation of such functors is in the "lexmod" egg: http://chicken.wiki.br/lexmod cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] csi scripts
On 11 Jan 2007 14:41:22 -0200, Mario Domenech Goulart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello, At http://chicken.wiki.br/writing%20portable%20scripts we have a section called "Writing portable scripts with env" whose instructions doesn't seem to be very portable. At least it doesn't work on my system: $ ./s.scm /usr/bin/env: csi -s: No such file or directory $ cat s.scm #! /usr/bin/env csi -s (print (argv)) There's a discussion on the guile mailing list about this topic: http://sourceware.org/ml/guile/1997-11/msg00034.html If nobody has objections, I'll remove the "Writing portable scripts with env" section from the wiki. Fine with me. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
