Re: [Chicken-users] R6RS
On 5/18/07, Michael McDermott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ubiquitous Unicode support I tend to look at requiring Unicode support as analogous to requiring the full numeric tower -- really important for some applications, and I have no beef with Chicken's solutions to both of these problems. Library/module system If and only if that standard library/module system takes off, I'll finally try to write portable Scheme. In the past I've resigned to just always writing implementation specific code (that could, with some effort, be ported). ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] [Scheme Steering Committee announcements] Voter registration for R6RS opens; R5.93RS to be released on May 22.
*** Voter Registration for R6RS Opens *** Voter registration for the R6RS Ratification process is now open. It will remain open until at least June 27, or two weeks after the Editors produce their final draft. The latter is now scheduled for June 30 (see below). Details of the registration process may be found at http://www.r6rs.org/ratification/. The relevant portions of this process are included below. *** R5.93RS to be released on 5/22 *** Also, the R6RS editors have released the following statement: The R6RS editors voted last week to delay the release of the next draft of the report by one week to give us a chance to proofread the draft more carefully. We therefore intend to release the R5.93RS draft on May 22 (at r6rs.org). Although the formal review process has ended, R5.93RS is not intended to be a candidate for adoption by the steering committee through its ratification process. Instead, we will continue to revise the draft, taking into account such public input as we receive, until we release our actual adoption candidate on June 30. --Mitch Wand R6RS Ratification The Scheme Standardization Charter says that after the Editors submit a proposed final draft, "the Steering Committee should then choose either to finalize the draft or to restart the review process." This document describes how the Steering Committee will make that decision. In order to be sure that the new revised Scheme standard enjoys wide support among the Scheme community - both implementors and users - we will hold a vote on the question of whether the draft should be ratified. If 60% or more of those voting vote "Yes", the Steering Committee will ratify the draft as R6RS. If fewer than 60% vote "Yes", the Steering Committee will decide how to restart the process. This will not be a secret ballot. The record of who voted yes, who voted no, and why they voted no, will be made public at the end of the process. Voter Registration Anybody who has a stake in the Scheme standards process - except the members of the Steering Committee - may participate in the ratification vote. In order to register, a potential voter must supply a "Statement of Interest" declaring what his stake is in the outcome of the process. Each voter's statement must be original, must be at least 150 words long, and must actually address the question of what the voter's interest is in the Scheme standard. At the end of the registration period (but before any voting), the list of enrolled voters will be published along with their statements of interest. Here are the voter instructions for the registration process: Download the registration form from www.r6rs.org/ratification/registration.txt. The registration form asks for the following information: 1. Email Address 2. Full Name 3. Geographic Location (country, region, city, etc.) 4. Affiliation (optional) 5. Public Email Address (optional) 6. Web Page URL (optional) 7. Statement of Interest The email address supplied in item 1 will be used for all future correspondence with you, but will not be published. The rest of the form will be made public. Items 2 through 6 are for identification purposes only. (The email address in item 5 is optional as spammers will inevitably collect any address supplied here.) The completed form, should be mailed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] We will perform a standard address confirmation on the email address you supply in item 1. (I.e., we will use it to mail you something that you have to mail back in order to prove that the person at that address really wants to vote on the future of Scheme.) Your Statement of Interest must be original, it must be at least 150 words long, and it must actually address the question of what your interest is in the Scheme standard. Be aware that we will read your statement, and if we think you have seriously missed the mark, we will ask you to submit another one. It is not our intent to run an essay competition here, we are just looking for evidence that you're taking this seriously. (On the other hand, what you write here will become part of the permanent record of the Scheme language, so this really would be a excellent place to pull out your best argument for why Scheme is important!) ___ Scheme-announcements mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.ccs.neu.edu/bin/listinfo/scheme-announcements ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] busy-wait in tcp-connect
While we're on the topic, I find Chicken's lightweight-threads and srfi-18 compatible streams incredibly useful. However, it's a pity that only unit tcp (and the (process) function) can create such streams. For example, it would be nice if one could create pipes with the same property; or, more generally, if any file descriptor could be wrapped in a srfi-18 compatible stream (or pair of streams). The code is already there, so this should be quite feasible. I *almost* understand how it works, but there seem to be some messy details... P.S. I have some other thoughts about binary streams and a possible stream API, but I'll make that a separate message. Cheers, Dan ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Chicken manual in Texinfo format
On 5/19/07, Ivan Raikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Mario, Do you care to elaborate why there is no easy way to do that? I will be very happy to contribute time and effort to building a wiki->texinfo converter. Ivan, I did some work on a wiki->texinfo converter (continuing Alejandro's earlier work), but never finished it. (Bad, bad volunteer.) The code is in the repository (the stream-wiki egg, I think). Though you could start from scratch, you could also continue the stalled work. Things may have changed since last year, but at that point it could build a workable texi version. Graham ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] file-exists? on Windows
Hi Felix, On Sun, 20 May 2007 01:48:26 +0200 "felix winkelmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can someone try the newest darcs head (file-exists? just chops the > trailing separator for the test). Works fine. Thanks a lot. Maybe the same should be done to `directory?': On windows: (directory? (current-directory)) => #t (directory? ".") => #t (directory? ".\\") => #f On GNU/Linux (directory? (current-directory)) => #t (directory? ".") => #t (directory? "./") => #t Best wishes, Mario ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] A Proposal for Texinfo Reference Manual, was: Re: Chicken manual in Texinfo format
THE PROPOSAL: Important point first: I propose, in the long run, to spare the wiki for tutorials, introductions, cookbooks, FAQs, installation problem, or anything else any casual user could confidently contribute, and let the maintainer or at least experienced programmers (a number of you, I suppose) do the real manual in Texinfo. The important chapters, I think, are: * Overview * Compiler usage * Interpreter usage * Interaction with Emacs through hen.el * Modules(?) and Functions * Foreign-Function Interface * Functions index * SRFI-support index I'll give a serious try to merge extant work (based on 2.613, not the wiki. Can't mirror) this week and see how it turned out. I'll learn an awful lot from the process, anyway. I seldom write Texinfo, so it *might* took longer to finish. NOTE ABOUT THE STRUCTURE: Of the two indices, the first any beginner will no doubt constantly peek at, the second readily accessed by more experienced Schemers. Each items in both points to a specific subsection in the Functions chapter. SOME BACKGROUND: I've tried MIT Scheme, Bigloo and PLT's (awesome) Scheme coding environment. What I'm used to see in a reference manual (GNU's especially), expect to (and do) find in their docs, and found to be lacking in Chicken's are (to say the least) a well-structured index to programming concepts, and library-functions supported by Chicken. Even hen.el's not described (only Lispers could use it in its current state). What's already provided is good, basically, but I find it hard to comprehend the system as a whole without looking at the source code and do regexp-search for ``^(define''s just to know what the codes could do out-of-the-box and how they do that. Even if no Texinfo version would ever exist, an alphabetical index in the HTML docs' offline version would suffice. I don't use the other aforementioned systems anymore, but still kept their docs to guess what I could expect to find in Chicken. Only recently do I find that Chicken (v2.6) barfs when I pass an output-port as the last argument to write-string, unlike MIT Scheme (not supposed to, according to the wiki. expected, according to the source). Keeping a Bigloo/MIT Scheme INFO file in a frame, R5RS INFO in another, and dired frame of Chicken src sure helps but it could've been better... By the way, I'm concerned about the wiki->texinfo thing. Wouldn't it be a dirty-hack kind of job, knowing Texinfo's strictness, and HTML usage and wiki engine's idiosyncracies? Don't know if it could be done cleanly in a reusable manner in Scheme, though. Now that's a good way to spend your hacking time. --- Mario Domenech Goulart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm afraid I don't understand your point. The > User's Manual looks > very good to me. Can you provide more details about > what you think > could be improved (and how)? > Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] file-exists? on Windows
On May 21, 2007, at 1:33 PM, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote: Hi Felix, On Sun, 20 May 2007 01:48:26 +0200 "felix winkelmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can someone try the newest darcs head (file-exists? just chops the trailing separator for the test). Works fine. Thanks a lot. Maybe the same should be done to `directory?': On windows: (directory? (current-directory)) => #t (directory? ".") => #t (directory? ".\\") => #f On GNU/Linux (directory? (current-directory)) => #t (directory? ".") => #t (directory? "./") => #t Yes. Won't be there till Tue. Best wishes, Mario ___ 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] A Proposal for Texinfo Reference Manual, was: Re: Chicken manual in Texinfo format
On 5/21/07, Adhi Hargo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: THE PROPOSAL: Important point first: I propose, in the long run, to spare the wiki for tutorials, introductions, cookbooks, FAQs, installation problem, or anything else any casual user could confidently contribute, and let the maintainer or at least experienced programmers (a number of you, I suppose) do the real manual in Texinfo. Wikis are for getting a community to gradually document stuff over time. Making people learn Texinfo isn't. Documentation is most programmers' least favorite thing to do, and they're not gonna do it. I believe the wiki needs to remain the primary source of documentation, with Texinfo a secondary format, if people want to put effort into that. Why? (1) Because I've seen this unfold in the CMake community. It's a much larger community, and yet very important stuff never gets documented, unless *I personally* go and add things. I don't have any particular responsibility for documentation. I just get really irked at documentation which cripples people, and I'm one of the few who will actually do something about it. Even I do very little. If lotsa people would do what I do, then CMake would have great documentation, but they don't. (2) Because Texinfo isn't relevant to all developers. The reality is there's an Emacs crowd, a Visual Studio crowd, an Eclipse crowd, and various other crowds. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
