Re: [Chicken-users] Use of Windows posix unit & process-execute/process-spawn
On 5/9/07, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Folks, Has anyone used the process-execute and/or process-spawn procs in the Windows posix unit? My reading of the code leads me to believe they do not function per the documentation. (And testing confirms this.) The process-execute proc uses a DSSSL style argument list but the body seems to assume a std Scheme style optional argument(s) (.i.e as if (foo a b . rest)). The process-spawn proc uses std Scheme style optional argument(s) but the body assumes only a single optional argument (an args list) is passed, and not the immediate list of args as the documentation specifies. I am especially interested in the spawn call because I am going to modify it to follow the optional args & env list per the process- execute signature. If the documented behavior is what is desired please let me know. You are right, both where incorrect. I'll push a fix for posixwin.scm in a few moments. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Ann: url egg 3.0
On May 8, 2007, at 7:25 PM, John Cowan wrote: Kon Lovett scripsit: I just felt a little uncomfortable having /usr/local/bin/testbase- driver. Why? It's excessively generic, like calling the Chicken interpreter "interpreter" or "scheme" or something. Oh it is not. It is at least as specific as "libtool" or "update-egg". It was named "chicken-testbase-driver" but I thought that unwarranted. Since this seems to be an issue I will choose something not "excessively generic". -- You're a brave man! Go and break through theJohn Cowan lines, and remember while you're out there [EMAIL PROTECTED] risking life and limb through shot and shell, http:// ccil.org/~cowan we'll be in here thinking what a sucker you are! --Rufus T. Firefly ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: eval and local variables
Chicken Monk scripsit: > The way I see it (and which is most likely incorrect :-): regular code > has access to variables in the current and enclosing scopes, so the > functionality is already there... Yes and no. In particular, in compiled code the compiler can notice exactly which procedures have access to which variables, and only pass the variables that are actually needed, either as additional arguments or as a data structure or (in other Schemes) in registers. If eval were allowed to access locally bound variables, such optimizations would be impossible. -- No, John. I want formats that are actually John Cowan useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that http://www.ccil.org/~cowan address all questions by piling on ridiculous [EMAIL PROTECTED] internal links in forms which are hideously over-complex. --Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Ann: url egg 3.0
Kon Lovett scripsit: > >I just felt a little uncomfortable having /usr/local/bin/testbase- > >driver. > > Why? It's excessively generic, like calling the Chicken interpreter "interpreter" or "scheme" or something. -- You're a brave man! Go and break through theJohn Cowan lines, and remember while you're out there [EMAIL PROTECTED] risking life and limb through shot and shell, http://ccil.org/~cowan we'll be in here thinking what a sucker you are! --Rufus T. Firefly ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Ann: url egg 3.0
On May 8, 2007, at 6:23 PM, Daishi Kato wrote: On 5/9/07, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It depends on how testbase is the standard in Chicken, doesn't it? I'm not sure about it, though. We have 4 testing eggs (5 including the obsolete test-infrastructure) plus a number of roll your own. No standards - yet. I just felt a little uncomfortable having /usr/local/bin/testbase- driver. Why? Just discard this issue if I'm the only guy who cares about it. So far the only one. Best, Daishi Best Wishes, Kon ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Ann: url egg 3.0
On 5/9/07, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On May 8, 2007, at 1:16 AM, Daishi Kato wrote: >> >> You need to get the testbase-driver egg, which will pull in testbase- >> results & testbase. > > Oh, I only setup'd the testbase egg. > > Could the name of the executable be something like "chicken- > testbase-driver"? Are you asking for a name change? "chicken-testbase" is a bit presumptuous. :-) It depends on how testbase is the standard in Chicken, doesn't it? I'm not sure about it, though. I just felt a little uncomfortable having /usr/local/bin/testbase-driver. Just discard this issue if I'm the only guy who cares about it. Best, Daishi ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] Use of Windows posix unit & process-execute/process-spawn
Hi Folks, Has anyone used the process-execute and/or process-spawn procs in the Windows posix unit? My reading of the code leads me to believe they do not function per the documentation. (And testing confirms this.) The process-execute proc uses a DSSSL style argument list but the body seems to assume a std Scheme style optional argument(s) (.i.e as if (foo a b . rest)). The process-spawn proc uses std Scheme style optional argument(s) but the body assumes only a single optional argument (an args list) is passed, and not the immediate list of args as the documentation specifies. I am especially interested in the spawn call because I am going to modify it to follow the optional args & env list per the process- execute signature. If the documented behavior is what is desired please let me know. Best Wishes, Kon ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: eval and local variables
On 5/8/07, Graham Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 5/8/07, Graham Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's a cheap-and-dirty way to do it; it's not perfect (especially > because there's some redundant typing involved) but you can have it > today: > > (define-macro (eval-with-locals locals expr) > `((eval '(lambda ,locals ,(eval expr))) ,@locals)) Try this instead: (define-macro (eval-with-locals locals expr) `((eval (list 'lambda ',locals ,expr)) ,@locals)) Example: (define z 1000) (let ((x 10) (y 100) (expr '(+ x y z))) (eval-with-locals (x y) expr)) ==> 1110 Graham ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Chicken performance (was Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Set! question - long example)
On May 8, 2007, at 5:34 AM, felix winkelmann wrote: On 5/8/07, William Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: PS. How does adding a SRFI to your code affect performance? You mean, as in "(require-extension srfi-1)"? It's compiled code as well, so it should be acceptable. If you need maximum performance, it may be worthwhile to include the source in your program and declare them hidden, to allow more inlining and constant folding, but only do that if you are really desperate. Compiling unsafe also helps. I tend to do the following: - For private but shared procedures the file is compiled unsafe (-O3) & inlined, with very unlikely global variable names. - For public procedures with arguments that are explicitly checked I add (no-procedure-checks) & (no-bound-checks) declarations to the file, often with inlining. - Otherwise the (no-procedure-checks-for-usual-bindings) declaration at a minimum. Note that all of the above is conditional during development. Also checkout the 'crunch' egg for a statically typed Scheme subset. Best Wishes, Kon cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users Best Wishes, Kon ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Ann: url egg 3.0
On May 8, 2007, at 1:16 AM, Daishi Kato wrote: You need to get the testbase-driver egg, which will pull in testbase- results & testbase. Oh, I only setup'd the testbase egg. Could the name of the executable be something like "chicken- testbase-driver"? Are you asking for a name change? "chicken-testbase" is a bit presumptuous. :-) Best Wishes, Kon ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: eval and local variables
On 5/8/07, Graham Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Here's a cheap-and-dirty way to do it; it's not perfect (especially because there's some redundant typing involved) but you can have it today: (define-macro (eval-with-locals locals expr) `((eval '(lambda ,locals ,(eval expr))) ,@locals)) Except that this fails: (let ((x 10) (y 100) (expr '(+ x y z))) (eval-with-locals (x y) expr)) ==> Error: during expansion of (eval-with-locals ...) - unbound variable: expr ...and this is what you really want to work. Sorry, don't have time to fix it right now. :-( G ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: eval and local variables
On 5/8/07, Chicken Monk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You'll have to pardon my ignorance... I am used to Python, where "eval" and "exec" have access to all the variables that regular code has, even in nested scopes. So I was wondering if something similar could be done in Scheme. Here's a cheap-and-dirty way to do it; it's not perfect (especially because there's some redundant typing involved) but you can have it today: (define-macro (eval-with-locals locals expr) `((eval '(lambda ,locals ,(eval expr))) ,@locals)) As an example: (define z 1000) (let ((x 10) (y 100)) (eval-with-locals (x y) '(+ x y z))) ==> 1110 This uses (eval) to create an anonymous function that takes our "locals" list as arguments. Then we call the anonymous function with the actual values of the specified local values. Actually, the redundancy of typing (x y) isn't a bad thing; there's no guesswork involved, and no chance that you're accidentally binding to, e.g., some global value of x. Cheers, Graham ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] Re: eval and local variables
felix winkelmann wrote: 2. Is it possible to get the "local environment" (which should have access to b and c)? Is there even such a thing, or am I seeing this completely wrong? This is not possible in general, unless you really want to peek into the internal representation of a closure. Thank you for your reply, Felix. You'll have to pardon my ignorance... I am used to Python, where "eval" and "exec" have access to all the variables that regular code has, even in nested scopes. So I was wondering if something similar could be done in Scheme. The way I see it (and which is most likely incorrect :-): regular code has access to variables in the current and enclosing scopes, so the functionality is already there... so maybe it would be possible to have a function (local-environment) that returns an environment containing the local variables? Of course it would need a parent environment, which I don't think environments.egg supports. I will probably need to take a look at the Chicken source code to see how it's *really* implemented. :) Oh, which leads me to another question: I am currently using Chicken 2.6. Judging from the change log, a lot has been changed/added since then. Is the development version stable enough to use for everyday coding, or should I stick with the "official" 2.6 for a while? Thanks, -- Chicken Monk "God loves ya. And she loves me too." ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] z3:encode-buffer hanging
Hi folks,
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the proper usage of z3:encode-buffer, but
it seems to hang when I use certain strings as argument.
Here are some examples:
(use z3 (srfi 1))
;(z3:encode-buffer "") ; hangs
;(z3:encode-buffer "0") ; hangs
;(z3:encode-buffer "00") ; hangs
;(z3:encode-buffer "000"); hangs
;(z3:encode-buffer "") ; ok
;(z3:encode-buffer "0") ; ok
;(z3:encode-buffer "00") ; ok
;(z3:encode-buffer "abcdef"); hangs
;(z3:encode-buffer "abcdefab") ; hangs
;(z3:encode-buffer "abcdefabc") ; ok
(define (data n)
(apply conc (iota n)))
;(z3:encode-buffer (data 10)) ; hangs
;(z3:encode-buffer (data 15)) ; hangs
;(z3:encode-buffer (data 20)) ; ok
;(z3:encode-buffer (data 50)) ; ok
PS: "hangs" means the code seems to be in an endless loop. Looks like
z is never NULL in encode_all (z3.scm) for the problem-strings.
>From encode_all (z3.scm):
do {
z = z3d_encode(z, str + start, len, &taken, ptr, destlen, &given);
start += taken;
destlen -= given;
ptr += given;
len -= taken;
} while(z != NULL);
Any hint?
Best wishes,
Mario
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Set! question - long example
Graham Fawcett scripsit: > Hm. If I don't start proof-reading my posts, Google is going to > associate me with "hard-core chicken performance"; and I'm not sure > that's a good thing... It's interesting what a diversity of topics you get when you actually google for those words (no quotation marks): motorcycles, skateboards, PC hardware, nutrition, radio antennas, American Idol, Star Wars, and punk rock -- and that's just the first Google page. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] ccil.org/~cowan Dievas dave dantis; Dievas duos duonos --Lithuanian proverb Deus dedit dentes; deus dabit panem --Latin version thereof Deity donated dentition; deity'll donate doughnuts --English version by Muke Tever God gave gums; God'll give granary --Version by Mat McVeagh ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] Re: Set! question - long example
On 5/8/07, Graham Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ...seems like a pretty *hard-core* introduction to me. Unless you're doing *hard-core* numerical stuff, I doubt Chicken's performance will ever disappoint you. Hm. If I don't start proof-reading my posts, Google is going to associate me with "hard-core chicken performance"; and I'm not sure that's a good thing... G ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] Re: Set! question - long example
On 5/8/07, William Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks for the help. I now fully understand what was going on. Great! Most people wouldn't learn am new language with a problem quite as difficult as what I'm taking on, but I have found from experience that that's the BEST way to learn a language. It makes no sense to put a lot of time into learning a language only to find way down the road that it doesn't meet your needs. Whatever's right for you. Writing a GTK text-editor seems like a pretty hard-core introduction to me. ;-) (One problem is that you discover cadr after writing (car (cdr x)) all over the place!!!) So far Chicken is doing everything I've ever done in Ruby and doing it four times faster. Unless you're doing hard-core numerical stuff, I doubt Chicken's performance will ever disappoint you. Best of luck, and keep the questions coming. Graham ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] Re: (address->pointer)
On 5/8/07, William Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Felix, Using (address->pointer number) does indeed do what I want.It allows me to pick up a user supplied integer in my "define-external" code. However, it has a rather bad side-effect.The code is handled in a dialog box. Using (g_signal_connect cbut "color-set" #$setColor (address->pointer 1)) will send a 1 to setColor, but it also wipes out my dialog pointer and crashes the system on Cancel or Save when I try to destroy it. Using (g_signal_connect cbut "color-set" #$setColor #f) works fine. Adding (address->pointer 1) is the only difference. Sorry, but what exactly is expected in the g_signal_connect call? As I understand it, the last argument is an arbitrary pointer (userdata) pass to the callback uninterpreted. If the callback (setColor) just prints the number, shouldn't it work. I apologize for being such a Gtk dolt, but I'm just guessing here. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Set! question - long example
On 5/8/07, William Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: PS. How does adding a SRFI to your code affect performance? You mean, as in "(require-extension srfi-1)"? It's compiled code as well, so it should be acceptable. If you need maximum performance, it may be worthwhile to include the source in your program and declare them hidden, to allow more inlining and constant folding, but only do that if you are really desperate. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] (address->pointer)
Hi Felix, Using (address->pointer number) does indeed do what I want.It allows me to pick up a user supplied integer in my "define-external" code. However, it has a rather bad side-effect.The code is handled in a dialog box. Using (g_signal_connect cbut "color-set" #$setColor (address->pointer 1)) will send a 1 to setColor, but it also wipes out my dialog pointer and crashes the system on Cancel or Save when I try to destroy it. Using (g_signal_connect cbut "color-set" #$setColor #f) works fine. Adding (address->pointer 1) is the only difference. Bill ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] Re: Set! question - long example
Graham Fawcett wrote: On 5/6/07, William Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Graham, This is a long example, but it's my actual code that now does exactly what I want. Thanks for posting your code. (A Chicken-based text editor would be a great tool!) Forgive the long response, but it's not clear to me where I've confused you, so I'd like to cover the same ground a couple of different ways. I think that your example is consistent with what I was talking about in my last message, though I'm not 100% certain. Your (set-color) procedure has calls like this: (set-foreground (car (list-tail cb4 2)) hexcolor) (vector-set! backup C_KEY1 hexcolor) The first line updates a gtk widget, the second updates your data structure, "backup" (which is really your working-copy). Right? Right Since you're using vector-set! here, what's really getting changed is the vector, "backup" --- you're swapping out some value in the vector at some position, and replacing it with another. Running with the building analogy, you're scratching a building off your list, and pencilling in a new one; but you're not modifying any of the buildings. Similarly, given two copies of a vector, e.g.: (set! a (get-some-vector)) (define b (make-vector (vector-length a))) (vector-copy! a b) Calling (vector-set! a ...) will alter the membership of the "a" vector, but will leave "b"unchanged. Does that make sense? Yes In your earlier message, you wrote: The colors are kept in a vector. What I tried was setting a variable for each color by referencing it's match in the vector. This failed because changing the variable changed the vector. I know you didn't post that older code. But when you say "changing the variable", were you talking about using "set!"? e.g. ;; initally set the variable (define v1 (vector-ref backup 0)) ;; ... ;; later on, change the variable (set! v1 something-else) In this case, the set! will not have changed the vector in any way. You're just making v1 refer to something else. Agreed? However, this code would alter the vector -- at least, it would alter one of its members: (mutate-thing! v1) ...where (mutate-thing!) is some procedure that acts on the object, v1, and changes it in some way. Since the object in question is both the referent of the variable v1, and also a member of the backup vector, the mutation would be observable from either place. In this particular case, calling (mutate-thing! (vector-ref backup 0)) would have done exactly the same thing. Does that make sense? Yes Please forgive my code it it seems bloated. The first priority in programming is always to get it to work first. Agreed. I won't give a critique, since you didn't ask for one, but here are a couple things you might not be aware of: (gtk_entry_get_text (car (cdr line2))) (gtk_entry_get_text (car (cdr line3))) (gtk_entry_get_text (car (cdr line4))) (gtk_entry_get_text (car (cdr line5))) The expression (car (cdr something)) can also be spelled (cadr something). Or, if you call (use srfi-1) to include the SRFI-1 list-manipulation procedures, you can spell it (second something). Similarly: (car (list-tail cb4 2)) is equivalent to (list-ref cb4 2), or (third cb4) if you use SRFI-1. The SRFI-1 library defines list accessors from (first) through (tenth), by the way. If you're not familiar with this SRFI, http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-1/srfi-1.html is worth a read. Best, Graham Thanks for the help. I now fully understand what was going on. Most people wouldn't learn am new language with a problem quite as difficult as what I'm taking on, but I have found from experience that that's the BEST way to learn a language. It makes no sense to put a lot of time into learning a language only to find way down the road that it doesn't meet your needs. (One problem is that you discover cadr after writing (car (cdr x)) all over the place!!!) So far Chicken is doing everything I've ever done in Ruby and doing it four times faster. Bill PS. How does adding a SRFI to your code affect performance? ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] easyffi missing foreign-parse
On 4/30/07, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -- We are lost, lost. No name, no business, no Precious, nothing. Only empty. Only hungry: yes, we are hungry. A few little fishes, nassty bony little fishes, for a poor creature, and they say death. So wise they are; so just, so very just. --Gollum[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ccil.org/~cowan Oh boy, I feel like that sometimes... cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] display function that shows sharing
On 4/27/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all.
Does chicken have a function that shows sharing in s-exps?
SRFI-38 can do this:
> (use srfi-38)
> (define a '(1 2))
> (define b (list a a))
> (write-with-shared-structure b)
(#1=(1 2) #1#)
The problem with SRFI-38 is that I don't want too see sharing
between strings!
So, is there a parameter for SRFI-38?
Or is there a more adequate function in Chicken? (like display-circle
in bigloo)
I have added an optional argument ("ignore-strings:" or "#:ignore-strings")
to "write-with-shared-structure" (version 1.2).
cheers,
felix
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] build irritations on windows xp
On 4/30/07, bryan rasmussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: okay well, I started building with msys, had some problems with CMAKE at first, when building got to the following part: Linking C static library libchicken-boot.a [ 62%] Built target libchicken-boot Scanning dependencies of target libpcre-for-static [ 66%] Building C object pcre/CMakeFiles/libpcre-for-static.dir/chartables.obj [ 66%] Building C object pcre/CMakeFiles/libpcre-for-static.dir/pcre_compile.obj c:/programminglanguages/scheme/chicken-2.6/pcre/pcre_compile.c: In function `compile_branch': c:/programminglanguages/scheme/chicken-2.6/pcre/pcre_compile.c:3263: `MAX_DUPLENGTH' undeclared (first use in this function) c:/programminglanguages/scheme/chicken-2.6/pcre/pcre_compile.c:3263: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once c:/programminglanguages/scheme/chicken-2.6/pcre/pcre_compile.c:3263: for each function it appears in.) c:/programminglanguages/scheme/chicken-2.6/pcre/pcre_compile.c:3869: `MAX_NAME_COUNT' undeclared (first use in this function) c:/programminglanguages/scheme/chicken-2.6/pcre/pcre_compile.c:3877: `MAX_NAME_SIZE' undeclared (first use in this function) make[2]: *** [pcre/CMakeFiles/libpcre-for-static.dir/pcre_compile.obj] Error 1 make[1]: *** [pcre/CMakeFiles/libpcre-for-static.dir/all] Error 2 make: *** [all] Error 2 This is indeed rather strange: I can't find any occurrence of MAX_DUPLENGTH or MAX_NAME_COUNT in the mentioned source file. Can you send me your version of pcre_compile.c, please? cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] (declare (block))
On 5/2/07, Shawn W. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So what does block actually do? "(declare (block))" is essentially like "static" in C: it means that the toplevel variables of a compiled library unit are not accessible (and thus can not be modified) from outside of the current compilation unit. It also may give hints to the compiler that toplevel variables have a fixed value and can be more easily inlined. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Ann: url egg 3.0
On 5/8/07, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On May 7, 2007, at 10:05 PM, Daishi Kato wrote: > Done moving code, except for: > - docs are just gone (I'm not yet familiar with wiki doc) Still there. I copied, edited & renamed. Thanks. > - test code would not run (couldn't find out how to make testbase > work) You need to get the testbase-driver egg, which will pull in testbase- results & testbase. Oh, I only setup'd the testbase egg. Could the name of the executable be something like "chicken-testbase-driver"? I put back the deprecated uri stuff & made global some procs needed by url. Thank you, Kon Also thank you, Daishi ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Syntax Egg Question
On 4/29/07, Joshua Griffith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm attempting to package one low-level macro as a syntax egg. This macro uses other helper functions and low-level macros to perform its task. Is it possible to hide these other macros and functions, so that only the main macro is exposed to the top-level? Any functions and macros that a macro definitiion expands into must be externally visible, so I suggest prefixing these internal macros/functions with something to distinguish them. An alternative is to use syntax-case modules (but you said this is a low-level macro, so this probably doesn't apply). If the macro uses code directly (i.e. not in the expansion, but while computing the expansion), you can also compile the support code into a shared library and load it at expansion time (and thus for example having a macro in a source file that uses support functions in a compiled .so of which the entry-points must be visible, but which may use non-visible/hidden internal functions). Now this latter paragraph has confused me probably just as much as you, so I again recommend using a prefix... cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Passing parameters to C
On 5/2/07, William Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can anyone explain how I pass a pointer from Scheme into C. Oddly enough #f is treated as a pointer, but nothing else seems to be. #f is just a special case that allows or more convenient handling of NULL pointers. As I wrote in a previous message, consider address->pointer from the lolevel library unit. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] SVN Account for SO(3,1) Group Manipulation Egg?
On 5/3/07, Will M Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: John, > I'm a little unhappy with the generic nature of the names "matrix" > and "params", as one might be using some other matrix package at > the same time. That's originally why I put it into a syntax-case module---can't people import that module with a prefix or something if they want? I think this is only possible using some deep syntax-case hacks. But the lexically scoped import form is usually enough for limiting the amount of namespace pollution. Do you think I should still put some prefix (SO31-... I imagine) on the code, or is using syntax-case renaming good enough? I think a syntax-case module is sufficient and keeps the names readable. As I said, syntax-case allows for very flexible importing at the lexical level, so I don't think this is an issue. BTW, Thanks for your contributions! cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Problems with chicken-setup in MinGW
On 5/7/07, Alex Queiroz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hallo, I tried to install the crunch egg. It requires the format-modular egg, which tries to install an object file (format-modular.o). Chicken-setup, unfortunately, translates the file name to format-modular.obj, which does not work with MinGW. So I guess this is a bug. :-) Please try to current darcs head - the mistranslation has been removed. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
