Re: [Chicken-users] Re: [Chicken-hackers] egg-post-commit
On 3/8/07, Alejandro Forero Cuervo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Out of curiosity --- if an egg doesn't have a 'tags' (and 'trunk') > directory, it is possible to modify it so that it does? Not only possible, it is also worthwhile. :-) You can do this by doing: [snip] Excellent -- thank you, Alejo, that looks very easy. Graham ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: [Chicken-hackers] egg-post-commit
> Out of curiosity --- if an egg doesn't have a 'tags' (and 'trunk') > directory, it is possible to modify it so that it does? Not only possible, it is also worthwhile. :-) You can do this by doing: cd $EGG mkdir trunk tags svn add trunk tags for file in *; do svn mv $file trunk; done; svn commit -m "Moving all the code to the trunk." Commit and then follow the instructions in “Making a release” at: http://chicken.wiki.br/eggs%20tutorial#Making%20a%20new%20release That should do it. :-) Alejo. http://azul.freaks-unidos.net/ ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: hart.egg
hi, On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 12:40:48PM +0100, felix winkelmann wrote: > On 3/8/07, Graham Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> except that i'm getting this message while compiling hart :) > >> > >> Warning: declarations are ignored in interpreted code > >> (##core#declare (quote (export hart-parse hart-html-escape > >hart-vector-for-each*))) > > > >Odd; it's not happening for me here (Version 2.514 - > >linux-unix-gnu-x86). I'll try on 2.6 later. > > If you use -X , it probably prefers to use an already installed > (compiled) version. For someone installing without a preinstalled > (perhaps older) version, the source file will be prefered. To ensure > the local version is used use "-X .scm". i can confirm that the warning goes away when hart is already installed. actually it's the (use hart-support) in hart.scm that causes the already installed hart-support.so to be loaded (which doesn't matter because it's imho not needed in this case as -X hart.scm is only required for the hart-for macro, as far as i understand) bye, hans. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] Re: hart.egg
hi, On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 06:31:50AM -0500, Graham Fawcett wrote: > OK, I've added (begin: ...). BTW, one of these days I plan to add a > (define-hart-keyword) procedure so you can write application-specific > keyword forms. sounds great! > I've also modified the parser and macros to accept multiple > expressions. So you can now write: > > (hart (raw: " (html (body ...))) > > as you suggested. Please update from svn and let me know how it works for > you. works fine, tnx! imho you can do (for-each hart-parse-form body) instead of (hart-emit (apply hart-parse body)) in the definition of (begin...) which generates more efficient code: #;2> ,x (hart (html (begin: "foo" (a "test") (t: x) 99))) (noop (begin (print* "footest") (apply print* (map hart-html-escape (list x))) (print* "99"))) vs #;10> ,x (hart (html (begin: "foo" (a "test") (t: x) 99))) (noop (begin (print* "") (begin (print* "footest") (apply print* (map hart-html-escape (list x))) (print* "99")) (print* ""))) bye, hans. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] syntax-case macros as extensions?
On Mar 8, 2007, at 5:28 AM, felix winkelmann wrote: Then you have to make those macros available at _compile-time_, or the compiler will not see them. "(require ...)" loads code at run-time, not at compile-time. Try "require-for-syntax". A somewhat related question: I have some macros that are defined with define-syntax using the syntax-case extension. I can't seem to make these macros into an extension that is usable at runtime in csi. I can load the .scm file just fine, and then the macros work in csi, but If I try to compile these into an extension, when I load it I get unbound variable errors. Here's a simple example: --- dotimes.scm - (require-for-syntax 'syntax-case) (define-syntax dotimes (syntax-rules () ((dotimes (var limit) e ...) (let loop ((var 0)) (if (< var limit) (begin e ... (loop (+ 1 var -- end dotimes.scm ;;; I suspect that I'm not quite doing the right thing in this setup file -- dotimes.setup --- (compile -s dotimes.scm) (install-extension 'dotimes "dotimes.so" '((syntax) (require-at-runtime syntax-case))) - end dotimes.setup --- ;; when simply loaded, dotimes.scm works as expected: // / ___ (______ ( ___ ___ || )| ||___)|___)| ) |__ | / | |__ | \ |__ | / Version 2.6 - macosx-unix-gnu-x86 - [ libffi dload ptables applyhook ] (c)2000-2007 Felix L. Winkelmann #;1> (load "/scheme/dotimes.scm") ; loading /scheme/dotimes.scm ... ; loading /usr/local/lib/chicken/1/syntax-case.so ... ; loading /usr/local/lib/chicken/1/syntax-case-chicken-macros.scm ... #;2> (dotimes (n 10) (display n)) 0123456789 ;; when required-for-syntax or used as an extension, it throws an unbound variable error: // / ___ (______ ( ___ ___ || )| ||___)|___)| ) |__ | / | |__ | \ |__ | / Version 2.6 - macosx-unix-gnu-x86 - [ libffi dload ptables applyhook ] (c)2000-2007 Felix L. Winkelmann #;1> (require-for-syntax 'dotimes) ; loading /usr/local/lib/chicken/1/dotimes.so ... ; loading /usr/local/lib/chicken/1/syntax-case.so ... ; loading /usr/local/lib/chicken/1/syntax-case-chicken-macros.scm ... #;2> (dotimes (n 10) (display n)) Error: unbound variable: n Call history: (dotimes (n (quote 10)) (display n)) (n (quote 10)) (quote 10) (display n) (dotimes (n (quote 10)) (display n)) (n (quote 10)) <-- ;; same with require-extension instead of require-for-syntax: // / ___ (______ ( ___ ___ || )| ||___)|___)| ) |__ | / | |__ | \ |__ | / Version 2.6 - macosx-unix-gnu-x86 - [ libffi dload ptables applyhook ] (c)2000-2007 Felix L. Winkelmann #;1> (require-extension dotimes) ; loading /usr/local/lib/chicken/1/dotimes.so ... ; loading /usr/local/lib/chicken/1/syntax-case.so ... ; loading /usr/local/lib/chicken/1/syntax-case-chicken-macros.scm ... #;2> (dotimes (n 10) (display n)) Error: unbound variable: n Call history: (dotimes (n (quote 10)) (display n)) (n (quote 10)) (quote 10) (display n) (dotimes (n (quote 10)) (display n)) (n (quote 10)) <-- Any idea what I'm doing wrong in the setup? regards, Ralph Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Problem with sqlite3 egg on MinGW Chicken 2.6
The sqlite3 egg 1.5.6+ requires the synch egg 1.0+. (At some point the .setup files for the eggs will be changed to state the required versions but for now you must do it manually.) Sorry, Kon Unfortunately, I couldn't figure out how to do this, and it seems I've made it worse :-/ I added (require-at-runtime synch) to the setup file and now it no longer even finds sqlite3:open. install-extension section now looks like this: (install-extension 'sqlite3 `(,so-file "sqlite3.html" "egg.jpg") '((version "1.5.7") (require-at-runtime synch) (documentation "sqlite3.html"))) Ian ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: [Chicken-hackers] egg-post-commit
2007/3/8, Alejandro Forero Cuervo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >What if the directory contains multiple eggs ? > >I ask this because I think I'll end up with lot of eggs for the > >gl-suite project. > >Is it better to have, gl-display-*, gl-font, gl-math, gl-repl, > >gl-samples, gl-etcaetera, > >or simply gl-suite ? > >(If the former, Felix, prepare to have more request from me:) > > On directory, one egg, please. Yeah, I totally agree: no directory in Chicken-eggs should have more than one egg. :) Fine thu ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: [Chicken-hackers] egg-post-commit
> >What if the directory contains multiple eggs ? > >I ask this because I think I'll end up with lot of eggs for the > >gl-suite project. > >Is it better to have, gl-display-*, gl-font, gl-math, gl-repl, > >gl-samples, gl-etcaetera, > >or simply gl-suite ? > >(If the former, Felix, prepare to have more request from me:) > > On directory, one egg, please. Yeah, I totally agree: no directory in Chicken-eggs should have more than one egg. Alejo. http://azul.freaks-unidos.net/ ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: hart.egg
On 3/8/07, felix winkelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you use -X , it probably prefers to use an already installed (compiled) version. For someone installing without a preinstalled (perhaps older) version, the source file will be prefered. To ensure the local version is used use "-X .scm". Thanks, felix -- I didn't know that. I'll give it a try. Graham ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: [Chicken-hackers] egg-post-commit
On 3/8/07, minh thu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What if the directory contains multiple eggs ? I ask this because I think I'll end up with lot of eggs for the gl-suite project. Is it better to have, gl-display-*, gl-font, gl-math, gl-repl, gl-samples, gl-etcaetera, or simply gl-suite ? (If the former, Felix, prepare to have more request from me:) On directory, one egg, please. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: [Chicken-hackers] egg-post-commit
2007/3/8, felix winkelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On 3/7/07, Alejandro Forero Cuervo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > egg-post-commit should only automatically upload an egg if (1) it > detects a change in the directory for the egg's latest release and (2) > the egg's directory doesn't have the 'autoupdate' Subversion property > set to 'no'. > > The directory for an egg's latest release would be: > > 1. If the egg has a 'tags' directory, > > 1.1. If the 'tags' directory has a 'latest' property set to 'foo', > the directory is 'tags/foo'. > > 1.2. Otherwise, the directory under 'tags' corresponding to the > greatest version number. > > 2. The egg's directory. > I'll do it exactly that way. Hi, What if the directory contains multiple eggs ? I ask this because I think I'll end up with lot of eggs for the gl-suite project. Is it better to have, gl-display-*, gl-font, gl-math, gl-repl, gl-samples, gl-etcaetera, or simply gl-suite ? (If the former, Felix, prepare to have more request from me:) Cheers, thu ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: [Chicken-hackers] egg-post-commit
On 3/8/07, Graham Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Out of curiosity --- if an egg doesn't have a 'tags' (and 'trunk') directory, it is possible to modify it so that it does? Yes, you can restructure your egg directory with "svn mv", for example. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: hart.egg
On 3/8/07, Graham Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > except that i'm getting this message while compiling hart :) > > Warning: declarations are ignored in interpreted code > (##core#declare (quote (export hart-parse hart-html-escape hart-vector-for-each*))) Odd; it's not happening for me here (Version 2.514 - linux-unix-gnu-x86). I'll try on 2.6 later. If you use -X , it probably prefers to use an already installed (compiled) version. For someone installing without a preinstalled (perhaps older) version, the source file will be prefered. To ensure the local version is used use "-X .scm". cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: [Chicken-hackers] egg-post-commit
On 3/8/07, felix winkelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 3/7/07, Alejandro Forero Cuervo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > egg-post-commit should only automatically upload an egg if (1) it > detects a change in the directory for the egg's latest release and (2) > the egg's directory doesn't have the 'autoupdate' Subversion property > set to 'no'. > > The directory for an egg's latest release would be: > > 1. If the egg has a 'tags' directory, > [snip] I'll do it exactly that way. Out of curiosity --- if an egg doesn't have a 'tags' (and 'trunk') directory, it is possible to modify it so that it does? Thanks, Graham ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] Re: hart.egg
Hi Hans, On 3/6/07, Hans Bulfone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 07:08:38PM -0500, Graham Fawcett wrote: thank you for the quick update! You're welcome! > I ended up just adding (use hart-support) into hart.scm. This seems to > address the problem in the interpreter and compiler both. yes, works fine for me. except that i'm getting this message while compiling hart :) Warning: declarations are ignored in interpreted code (##core#declare (quote (export hart-parse hart-html-escape hart-vector-for-each*))) Odd; it's not happening for me here (Version 2.514 - linux-unix-gnu-x86). I'll try on 2.6 later. how about a (begin: ...) form? that would also be useful for if: if the branches contain more than one html tag (of course, as you pointed out, one could also just use let: ) OK, I've added (begin: ...). BTW, one of these days I plan to add a (define-hart-keyword) procedure so you can write application-specific keyword forms. I've also modified the parser and macros to accept multiple expressions. So you can now write: (hart (raw: "http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] compiled program with macros raises unbound-variable error
felix winkelmann schrieb: > On 3/8/07, foobar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi list, >> >> i've tried to compile a file that uses some macros defined with >> syntax-rules. >> I compiled it using: csc -R tinyclos foo.scm >> So nothing special sofar. >> The file compiles without warnings or errors. >> >> Another file compiled to a shared-library >> using csc -s cps.scm. >> This file requires the macros via >> (require 'cps-syntax). > > Is cps-syntax a source file containing macros? yes. > Then you have to > make those macros available at _compile-time_, or the > compiler will not see them. "(require ...)" loads code at run-time, > not at compile-time. Try "require-for-syntax". I tried it and it worked :) Thanks very much. I didn't know that there is a special syntax for such things. I tried it using csc -run-time-macros but that didn't work either. I'll consult the manual for the various forms to require files. greets certainty ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] compiled program with macros raises unbound-variable error
On 3/8/07, foobar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi list, i've tried to compile a file that uses some macros defined with syntax-rules. I compiled it using: csc -R tinyclos foo.scm So nothing special sofar. The file compiles without warnings or errors. Another file compiled to a shared-library using csc -s cps.scm. This file requires the macros via (require 'cps-syntax). Is cps-syntax a source file containing macros? Then you have to make those macros available at _compile-time_, or the compiler will not see them. "(require ...)" loads code at run-time, not at compile-time. Try "require-for-syntax". cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] compiled program with macros raises unbound-variable error
Hi list, i've tried to compile a file that uses some macros defined with syntax-rules. I compiled it using: csc -R tinyclos foo.scm So nothing special sofar. The file compiles without warnings or errors. Another file compiled to a shared-library using csc -s cps.scm. This file requires the macros via (require 'cps-syntax). This 'cps'-file is then required by the mainfile via (require 'cps). The file in question doesn't use the macros but procedures from cps.scm/so which inturn use the macros. When i try to run the main-file i get: Error: unbound variable: make-problem Where 'make-problem' is a macro defined in cps-syntax. I assumed that all macros were expanded during compilation and only the expanded version is inserted into the code prior to the final compilation to c and then to systembinary. But appearently that's not the case. What am i missing here? Any hints are very much appreciated. Best regards certainty ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
