Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
> On 2/19/08, Alejandro Forero Cuervo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alright. I suppose I'll highlight the procedure name and make sure it
> > gets typeset in monospaced font, as:
> >
> > [procedure] {{('''proc''' a b)}}
>
> I would like it if that line were wrapped in a e.g.
> ... so that it can be styled via CSS
> with borders, a background, or something. (Like the current ones,
> which have a background/border that comes from .)
>
> Span tags, e.g. [procedure] and
> (proc a b) would probably
> be nice but not as important as the .
Good thinking.
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] Playing with ideas for a chicken website
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 6:43 AM, Ozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just playing around with some ideas I had for a Chicken website, figured I > might > as well post them up and let everyone see what I wasted a couple of hours on > tonight :-) Hey, the animated highlighting is nice! cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
> On 2/19/08, Jim Ursetto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > doctype:xhtml-1.0-strict > > Thinking about this a little more, it strikes me that > "definition" or "def" is probably a better tag than "signature". > So: > > doctype:xhtml-1.0-strict > > for unusual definitions we don't provide a built-in tag for. > > You could really replace every definition tag like this, e.g. > (receive args expr body) > > however, I think providing a few specific tags like we > discussed looks nicer. I'll leave the verdict on that > to the group. Heh, this discussion is kinda similar to the Common Lisp versus Scheme discussion of whether different namespaces should be used for different types of things or there should be only one namespace. :-P I think we should stick to , and so on. They are easier to type than , and so on. The fact that their associated rendering logic is very similar is not relevant. What if instead of and we simply use ? Would that work? 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] Stupid backquote/unquote question
> Hans Nowak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > #;1> (define magic 42) #;2> (define s '(foo bar ,magic)) [...] > The following doesn't work: > #;4> `s s #;5> `,s (foo bar (unquote magic)) > ...and I understand *why* they don't work, but I can't figure > out how to take s and transform it into (foo bar 42). quasiquote is syntax - it happens at compile-time, so to apply it to dynamic data at runtime you need to call EVAL: (eval (list 'quasiquote s)) ; => (foo bar 42) EVAL may be overkill for something this simple - an alternative would be to write a simple substitution function: (use lolevel) (define (replace-unquotes x) (if (not (pair? x)) x (if (and (pair? (cdr x)) (null? (cddr x)) (eq? 'unquote (car x))) (global-ref (cadr x)) (cons (replace-unquotes (car x)) (replace-unquotes (cdr x)) (replace-unquotes s) ; => (foo bar 42) You'd of course have to extend this if you want to handle nested quasiquotes and unquote-splicing. -- Alex ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
On 2/19/08, Jim Ursetto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > doctype:xhtml-1.0-strict Thinking about this a little more, it strikes me that "definition" or "def" is probably a better tag than "signature". So: doctype:xhtml-1.0-strict for unusual definitions we don't provide a built-in tag for. You could really replace every definition tag like this, e.g. (receive args expr body) however, I think providing a few specific tags like we discussed looks nicer. I'll leave the verdict on that to the group. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
On 2/19/08, Alejandro Forero Cuervo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alright. I suppose I'll highlight the procedure name and make sure it
> gets typeset in monospaced font, as:
>
> [procedure] {{('''proc''' a b)}}
I would like it if that line were wrapped in a e.g.
... so that it can be styled via CSS
with borders, a background, or something. (Like the current ones,
which have a background/border that comes from .)
Span tags, e.g. [procedure] and
(proc a b) would probably
be nice but not as important as the .
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] Stupid backquote/unquote question
This is more of a general Scheme question... Let's say I have the following definitions: #;1> (define magic 42) #;2> (define s '(foo bar ,magic)) Now I want to replace ",magic" with its value. If I write this directly with backquote and unquote, it's easy and straightforward: #;3> `(foo bar ,magic) (foo bar 42) So far, so good. But: how do I do the same with the existing list s? The following doesn't work: #;4> `s s #;5> `,s (foo bar (unquote magic)) ...and I understand *why* they don't work, but I can't figure out how to take s and transform it into (foo bar 42). Maybe I'm stupid, but I just don't see it. Is it possible? Or do I need to do something entirely different? The underlying idea is that I want to write some sort of DSL, using s-expressions, but it should be possible to insert ,values into it that get evaluated as usual. E.g. (jmp #xC000) should be functionally the same as (define foo #xC000) (jmp ,foo) Thanks, --Hans ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] Playing with ideas for a chicken website
Just playing around with some ideas I had for a Chicken website, figured I might as well post them up and let everyone see what I wasted a couple of hours on tonight :-) Be warned, the javascript crashed Firefox here on OS X a few times. I built it in Safari, works fine there. http://ozzilee.com/chicken_mockup/ ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] MSVC makefile (was Errors building eggs in mingw/msys)
John Cowan wrote: Ashley scripsit: Actually, the problem turned out to be my misunderstanding of the intent of the mingw-msys makefile. I assumed it was similar to the cygwin build, but I realize now that doesn't make much sense as mingw uses the microsoft runtime. So things like chicken-setup, which ultimately call system(), need paths windows can understand. I was using it as if /home referenced the root of the file system, when in fact it sits at c:\msys\1.0\home. Do remember though that the Windows kernel is perfectly happy with / rather than \, which makes things much simpler. CMD insists on \; I don't know about MSVC makefiles. Yeah, the problem in the case above wasn't the use of / or \, it was simply the fact that "home" in the msys shell (and in my mind at the time) sat at /, while Windows saw it (correctly) as residing in c:/msys/1.0. The "slash" issue has caused an issue w/ the MSVC build I'm working on, though, because chicken-setup calls "del" to remove most files during an uninstall, and del chokes on / even when the path is quoted. On the other hand, (delete-file* ...) is called to remove the .setup-info file, which works because as you say the windows runtime handles / just fine. The makefile I'm working on is a gnu makefile, and is integrated with the normal build system for chicken. You'll need cygwin or some other posix-like environment to do the actual build, but you can run all the tools in plain cmd.exe once done. At least the tools I've tested so far. ashley ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] MSVC makefile (was Errors building eggs in mingw/msys)
Ashley scripsit: > Actually, the problem turned out to be my misunderstanding of the > intent of the mingw-msys makefile. I assumed it was similar to > the cygwin build, but I realize now that doesn't make much sense > as mingw uses the microsoft runtime. So things like chicken-setup, > which ultimately call system(), need paths windows can understand. > I was using it as if /home referenced the root of the file system, > when in fact it sits at c:\msys\1.0\home. Do remember though that the Windows kernel is perfectly happy with / rather than \, which makes things much simpler. CMD insists on \; I don't know about MSVC makefiles. > The easyffi egg won't build, at least with MSVC 2003, because it > contains a literal string larger than 65535 characters. Sounds like the egg should be refactored to break up the string, since consecutive strings in ISO C are implicitly concatentated anyway. -- All Gaul is divided into three parts: the part John Cowan that cooks with lard and goose fat, the parthttp://ccil.org/~cowan that cooks with olive oil, and the part that[EMAIL PROTECTED] cooks with butter. -- David Chessler ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] MSVC makefile (was Errors building eggs in mingw/msys)
On Feb 20, 2008 3:56 PM, Ashley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm going to do some more work on it today. Right now uninstall doesn't > work and it > doesn't clean up properly in the main build or when using > chicken-setup. Assuming > people are interested, I'll post a patch later today. I'm interested! cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] MSVC makefile (was Errors building eggs in mingw/msys)
John Cowan wrote: All builds on Windows (cygwin, mingw, mingw/msys) have the same issue: Windows doesn't have a separate search path for DLLs, so all DLLs have to be on $PATH. However, the working directory is *always* on $PATH whether explicitly so or not. Actually, the problem turned out to be my misunderstanding of the intent of the mingw-msys makefile. I assumed it was similar to the cygwin build, but I realize now that doesn't make much sense as mingw uses the microsoft runtime. So things like chicken-setup, which ultimately call system(), need paths windows can understand. I was using it as if /home referenced the root of the file system, when in fact it sits at c:\msys\1.0\home. Anyway, the main reason I was playing with this was to get familiar with the build system so I could develop a makefile for the visual C compiler. I use chicken at work and I must have MSVC support. The old version I've been using for a couple of years supports it, but I'd like to upgrade to a newer version. I've got my new makefile (Makefile.msvc) working for all targets in chicken-3.0.0, and I've modified chicken-setup.scm and csc.scm to handle the MSVC compiler. Most of the eggs I've tried build successfully, though a couple seem to have some minor unix assumptions that cause problems. The easyffi egg won't build, at least with MSVC 2003, because it contains a literal string larger than 65535 characters. I assume that's a heap though I haven't looked at it. Maybe the newer MS compilers won't have that stupid limitation, or maybe I can pass some flag to chicken to deal with it. I'm going to do some more work on it today. Right now uninstall doesn't work and it doesn't clean up properly in the main build or when using chicken-setup. Assuming people are interested, I'll post a patch later today. ashley ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Continuation Fest 2008
> "Ivan" == Ivan Raikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ivan>Are any Chicken Schemers thinking about attending the Ivan> Continuation Fest in Tokyo that was just announced on Ivan> comp.lang.scheme? I will probably be in the area that entire Ivan> weekend, if anyone wants to have a Chicken meetup. I'll most likely show up, at least for the day if not the whole weekend. -- Alex ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] Continuation Fest 2008
Hi all, Are any Chicken Schemers thinking about attending the Continuation Fest in Tokyo that was just announced on comp.lang.scheme? I will probably be in the area that entire weekend, if anyone wants to have a Chicken meetup. -Ivan ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Chicken For Ruby Programmers
Hi folks, On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:06:27 -0600 Mark Fredrickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > https://galinha.ucpel.tche.br/cgi-bin/svnwiki/default/chicken-for-ruby-programmers Just a sidenote: this URL can be shortened to http://chicken.wiki.br/chicken-for-ruby-programmers Keep the good work! Best wishes, Mario ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Chicken For Ruby Programmers
Previously to Scheme I was playing with Ruby. One feature of Scheme that got me hooked was s-expressions. I still struggle to explain s-expressions verbally. There are continual debates about s-expressions vs XML vs xyz on the interweb. It would be cool to include an introduction to s-expressions for people coming from the Ruby world. Regards, John. On 20/02/2008, Mark Fredrickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Raymond, > > On Feb 19, 2008, at 7:16 PM, Raymond Medeiros wrote: > > > Hi, myself and my friend Liam Irish were considering working on this > > portion of the hack-a-thon. > > So I'm throwing it out there, I noticed that Mark Fredrickson is > > already on the list for Ruby. > > Great! I know Peter Bex also expressed a willigness to help. The more > help the better. I have absolutely no intention of monopolizing this > work! I would encourage you to add your name(s) to the list. Also, > Mario is encouraging people to add profile pages, and this might be a > good time to do both. > > > We both have extensive "real world" experience with Ruby as a > > language, might not be so > > strong on the scheme side, but could possibly lend a hand in > > fleshing this out. > > Cool. I have less Ruby experience, but I agreed to give a presentation > on Scheme to my local Ruby user's group. I would greatly value your > experience. > > > BTW, > > I love the "Chicken for X Programmers" I think that this is > > precisely the kind of thing Chicken > > needs to gain more exposure. I welcome any comments suggestions on > > this. > > Neither a comment nor suggestion, but a question: As a Ruby > programmer, what would you like to see in an introductory document? I > was brainstorming ideas tonight, and I find it hard to decide whether > to focus on very specific topics (e.g. "Instead of a Hash class, you > can use (make-hash-table)") vs. higher level concepts (e.g. "Blocks > are like anonymous functions."). > > I suspect these intro docs will be a combo of the two. > > Cheers, > -Mark > > > > ___ > 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
