Re: [Chicken-users] chicken-users vs chicken-hackers

[Vincent Manis]

On 2008 Feb 25, at 17:19, Jeremy Sydik wrote:

+1  -- There's no reason -hackers couldn't be brought back if the  
need arose, right?


--Jeremy

On Feb 25, 2008, at 7:08 PM, Ivan Raikov wrote:



Cross-posting is quite annoying, I agree. Either we should
discourage cross-posting, or not use Chicken-Hackers. I don't think
that the two lists are so high-volume that merging would be an issue.


+1 here too. -- v


___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] Vim syntax file for svnwiki

[Alan Post]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:05:26PM -0800, Vincent Manis wrote:
> 
> On 2008 Feb 25, at 17:11, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:
> 
> >>I just wrote a Vim syntax file for svnwiki, mainly to learn how to
> >>write a Vim syntax file :-) and to help editing Wiki pages too.
> >
> >Thank you, Tobia, I can't wait to begin using it! :-)
> >
> >Care to send it to the Vim-people (I don't know if these days you're
> >supposed to send it to their mailing list or directly to Bram or what)
> >so it gets included with the official Vim releases?
> 
> Can I ask one of you Vim people to go to the draft of the revised  
> Chapter
> 1 at http://chicken.wiki.br/new-chapter1, and say something more about  
> using
> Vim with Chicken (it will be in the section on Development Environments,
> you can replace the sentence about how :q! is the only vi command I  
> know :-).
> 
> I'm working on a document on GNU Emacs and Chicken, and I think a  
> similar
> vim-based document would be really valuable.
> 

I think there is a lot more than this to say about writing scheme
code in Vim, which means that the following would need to be edited
into a large document, but I'll throw it in to get started[1]:

  At a minimum, your .vimrc file should contain the following
  commands:

  <++> .vimrc
  "automatically indent a new line to the same indentation of the
  "previous line.  This makes it easier to work with a single block
  "of code.
  set autoindent

  "when you type a closing parenthesis, momentarily highlight the
  "matching opening parenthesis.  This allows you to quickly see
  "which function you are closing while typing code.
  set showmatch
  <-->


-Alan

[1]: I don't have wiki access, but have just sent a request for such
 per the instructions on [wiki:svn checkout].
-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?


___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] Vim syntax file for svnwiki

[Alan Post]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:05:26PM -0800, Vincent Manis wrote:
> 
> On 2008 Feb 25, at 17:11, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:
> 
> >>I just wrote a Vim syntax file for svnwiki, mainly to learn how to
> >>write a Vim syntax file :-) and to help editing Wiki pages too.
> >
> >Thank you, Tobia, I can't wait to begin using it! :-)
> >
> >Care to send it to the Vim-people (I don't know if these days you're
> >supposed to send it to their mailing list or directly to Bram or what)
> >so it gets included with the official Vim releases?
> 
> Can I ask one of you Vim people to go to the draft of the revised  
> Chapter
> 1 at http://chicken.wiki.br/new-chapter1, and say something more about  
> using
> Vim with Chicken (it will be in the section on Development Environments,
> you can replace the sentence about how :q! is the only vi command I  
> know :-).
> 
> I'm working on a document on GNU Emacs and Chicken, and I think a  
> similar
> vim-based document would be really valuable.
> 

I think there is a lot more than this to say about writing scheme
code in Vim, which means that the following would need to be edited
into a large document, but I'll throw it in to get started[1]:

  At a minimum, your .vimrc file should contain the following
  commands:

  <++> .vimrc
  "automatically indent a new line to the same indentation of the
  "previous line.  This makes it easier to work with a single block
  "of code.
  set autoindent

  "when you type a closing parenthesis, momentarily highlight the
  "matching opening parenthesis.  This allows you to quickly see
  "which function you are closing while typing code.
  set showmatch
  <-->


-Alan

[1]: I don't have wiki access, but have just sent a request for such
 per the instructions on [wiki:svn checkout].
-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?


___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] chicken-users vs chicken-hackers

[Alan Post]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:08:24AM +0900, Ivan Raikov wrote:
> 
>   Cross-posting is quite annoying, I agree. Either we should
> discourage cross-posting, or not use Chicken-Hackers. I don't think
> that the two lists are so high-volume that merging would be an issue. 
> 
>-Ivan
> 

Hello, My name is Alan Post.

I signed up to both lists this weekend to start the process of
getting involved in using chicken.  I understand why there are two
lists, but I would be just as happy to have one.  There wasn't any
question to me that I should sign up to both of them.  I'd be happy
to have them merged.

-Alan
-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?


___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] Vim syntax file for svnwiki

[Vincent Manis]

On 2008 Feb 25, at 17:11, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:


I just wrote a Vim syntax file for svnwiki, mainly to learn how to
write a Vim syntax file :-) and to help editing Wiki pages too.


Thank you, Tobia, I can't wait to begin using it! :-)

Care to send it to the Vim-people (I don't know if these days you're
supposed to send it to their mailing list or directly to Bram or what)
so it gets included with the official Vim releases?


Can I ask one of you Vim people to go to the draft of the revised  
Chapter
1 at http://chicken.wiki.br/new-chapter1, and say something more about  
using

Vim with Chicken (it will be in the section on Development Environments,
you can replace the sentence about how :q! is the only vi command I  
know :-).


I'm working on a document on GNU Emacs and Chicken, and I think a  
similar

vim-based document would be really valuable.

Cheers -- v


___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] chicken-users vs chicken-hackers

[Jeremy Sydik]

+1  -- There's no reason -hackers couldn't be brought back if the need  
arose, right?


--Jeremy

On Feb 25, 2008, at 7:08 PM, Ivan Raikov wrote:



 Cross-posting is quite annoying, I agree. Either we should
discourage cross-posting, or not use Chicken-Hackers. I don't think
that the two lists are so high-volume that merging would be an issue.

  -Ivan

Alejandro Forero Cuervo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


Does anyone else finds the existance of both chicken-users and
chicken-hackers confusing?  I've seen some threads initiated by  
people

crossposting (seems to be a fairly accepted usage, so I'm doing it on
this message) but then half the people reply in one thread and half  
in

the other, making it hard to follow the conversations.

Would others agree that we should get rid of chicken-hackers and just
use chicken-users?

Alejo.
http://azul.freaks-unidos.net/



___
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] Vim syntax file for svnwiki

[Alejandro Forero Cuervo]

> I just wrote a Vim syntax file for svnwiki, mainly to learn how to  
> write a Vim syntax file :-) and to help editing Wiki pages too.

Thank you, Tobia, I can't wait to begin using it! :-)

Care to send it to the Vim-people (I don't know if these days you're
supposed to send it to their mailing list or directly to Bram or what)
so it gets included with the official Vim releases?

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] chicken-users vs chicken-hackers

[Ivan Raikov]

  Cross-posting is quite annoying, I agree. Either we should
discourage cross-posting, or not use Chicken-Hackers. I don't think
that the two lists are so high-volume that merging would be an issue. 

   -Ivan

Alejandro Forero Cuervo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Does anyone else finds the existance of both chicken-users and
> chicken-hackers confusing?  I've seen some threads initiated by people
> crossposting (seems to be a fairly accepted usage, so I'm doing it on
> this message) but then half the people reply in one thread and half in
> the other, making it hard to follow the conversations.
>
> Would others agree that we should get rid of chicken-hackers and just
> use chicken-users?
>
> Alejo.
> http://azul.freaks-unidos.net/


___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

[Chicken-users] chicken-users vs chicken-hackers

[Alejandro Forero Cuervo]

Does anyone else finds the existance of both chicken-users and
chicken-hackers confusing?  I've seen some threads initiated by people
crossposting (seems to be a fairly accepted usage, so I'm doing it on
this message) but then half the people reply in one thread and half in
the other, making it hard to follow the conversations.

Would others agree that we should get rid of chicken-hackers and just
use chicken-users?

Alejo.
http://azul.freaks-unidos.net/


___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

[Chicken-users] Vim syntax file for svnwiki

[Tobia Conforto]

Hello

I just wrote a Vim syntax file for svnwiki, mainly to learn how to  
write a Vim syntax file :-) and to help editing Wiki pages too.


You can find it attached.
To install, just save it in ~/.vim/syntax/, creating the dirs if  
necessary.


To activate it, just  :set ft=svnwiki  when you need it,
or put some autocommands in your .vimrc, such as:

au BufRead *  if getline(1) =~ '^\[\[[a-z]\+:\|^== ' |setl ft=svnwiki | 
endif



If you find any combination of Wiki constructs where the highlighting  
doesn't match the Wiki output, or if you have any feedback/bug/feature  
request, feel free to ask!



Happy hacking,
Tobia



svnwiki.vim
Description: Binary data


___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

[Chicken-users] ScmPkg?

[Alejandro Forero Cuervo]

Has anybody used ScmPkg  with Chicken?
Does it work well?  How would one install a package from ScmPkg on
Chicken?

Alejo.
http://azul.freaks-unidos.net/


___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

[Chicken-users] Re: [Chicken-hackers] Hackathon roundup

[Peter Bex]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 06:27:31AM -0800, Kon Lovett wrote:
> Thanks to everyone for all the work. I just wish "test- 
> infrastructure" wasn't translated since it is obsolete. The current  
> is "testbase".

Even obsolete stuff should be moved to the wiki.  Everything in one
place means everything in one place.  If testbase is *that* obsolete,
we should just 'svn rm' it.

Cheers,
Peter
-- 
http://sjamaan.ath.cx
--
"The process of preparing programs for a digital computer
 is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically
 and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic
 experience much like composing poetry or music."
-- Donald Knuth


pgpGYLhpofRDA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] nondescript eggs

[Daishi Kato]

Hi,

swt should be fine if jni works well,
but it's not tested and I'm not going to maintain it.

On the other hand, I would like to continue to develop
wxchicken, which is not complete yet at all,
but I'm currently not working on it due to time limitation.
Any help would be welcome.

Daishi

At Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:31:23 +0100 (CET),
Felix Winkelmann wrote:
> 
> 
> Hello!
> 
> The following eggs have currently no ".meta" file and seem to
> be in a state of flux, or have not been implemented yet
> (but are registered in the repository:
> 
> * binary-tree/
> * dns/
> * filesystem/
> * gl-display-glx/
> * gl-font/
> * libapreq-mfd-parser/
> * meroonet/
> * methods/
> * minioop/
> * scoop/
> * sockets/
> * statvfs/
> * swt/
> * wxchicken/
> 
> These have been moved into the "nondescript" branch and can be
> accessed as usual (the permissions will be updated accordingly).
> Whoever is working on these, please consider moving them into
> the release/3 branch later, once you think they are ready for
> being made available.
> 
> 
> cheers,
> felix
> 
> 
> ___
> Chicken-users mailing list
> Chicken-users@nongnu.org
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
> 
> **
>  XREA.COM -Free Web Hosting-
>  http://www.xrea.com/
> **


___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] C_truep( C_fixnump( w ))

[Kon Lovett]

On Feb 25, 2008, at 5:55 AM, felix winkelmann wrote:

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Heinrich Taube <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:

thank you both very much. just to be sure:

 (1) should i be using a C_truep() around C_immediatep() like the  
other

 predicate tests or is this ok:

if ( C_immediatep(w) ) {
   if ( C_truep(C_fixnump(w)) ) {
   ...
   }

else if  ( C_truep(C_blockp(w)) && C_truep( C_flonump 
( w ) )) {




Yes, this is correct. It is obviously inconsistent, but  
C_immediatep was

intended to be used from C and C_fixnump from compiled code.
Changing this will break old (compiled) code.


I didn't bother to check for immediate or block since

1) We assume it is a Chicken numeric value

2) An immediate value is an invalid address of a block/special item

3) So checking 1st for a fixnum & then for flonum is enough

but real argument checking should be more stringent than my example.





 (2) how can i test for strictly #f #t boolean value inside the
 immedatep clause?



(x == C_SCHEME_FALSE || x == C_SCHEME_TRUE)



#define C_truep(x) ((x) != C_SCHEME_FALSE)

Most of the C_*p are wrapped in a C_mk_bool which is why I used  
C_truep for the test.





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] C_truep( C_fixnump( w ))

[felix winkelmann]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Heinrich Taube <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> thank you both very much. just to be sure:
>
>  (1) should i be using a C_truep() around C_immediatep() like the other
>  predicate tests or is this ok:
>
> if ( C_immediatep(w) ) {
>if ( C_truep(C_fixnump(w)) ) {
>...
>}
>
> else if  ( C_truep(C_blockp(w)) && C_truep( C_flonump( w ) )) {
>

Yes, this is correct. It is obviously inconsistent, but C_immediatep was
intended to be used from C and C_fixnump from compiled code.
Changing this will break old (compiled) code.

>
>  (2) how can i test for strictly #f #t boolean value inside the
>  immedatep clause?
>

(x == C_SCHEME_FALSE || x == C_SCHEME_TRUE)


cheers,
felix


___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] C_truep( C_fixnump( w ))

[Heinrich Taube]

thank you both very much. just to be sure:

(1) should i be using a C_truep() around C_immediatep() like the other  
predicate tests or is this ok:


if ( C_immediatep(w) ) {
   if ( C_truep(C_fixnump(w)) ) {
  ...
  }

   else if  ( C_truep(C_blockp(w)) && C_truep( C_flonump( w ) )) {


(2) how can i test for strictly #f #t boolean value inside the  
immedatep clause?



___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] Hackathon roundup

[Alaric Snell-Pym]

On 25 Feb 2008, at 11:17 am, felix winkelmann wrote:

Thanks, Peter, for organizing this. It was indeed very successful and
(even though work intensive) a lot of fun. You did a nice job of
coordinating the documentation effort and keeping up the spirit
on #chicken!



Yep, Peter was the star of the show, along with poor Alejandro who
was kept very busy nursing the server through the amount of post-
commit script work we were giving it!

Hopefully I can put in more than my meagre few hours wikifying eggs
next time (and I'm looking forward to commenting on Chicken For Java
Programmers),

ABS

--
Alaric Snell-Pym
Work: http://www.snell-systems.co.uk/
Play: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/
Blog: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/?author=4




___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] Hackathon roundup

[felix winkelmann]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Peter Bex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
>  This weekend's hackathon was a great success.  Fun was had by all, and lots
>  of work got done.  Most importantly, a number of new people have become
>  more active in the project.

Thanks, Peter, for organizing this. It was indeed very successful and
(even though work intensive) a lot of fun. You did a nice job of
coordinating the documentation effort and keeping up the spirit
on #chicken!

I'm looking forward to the next hackathon, whenever it will be!


cheers,
felix


___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

[Chicken-users] Hackathon roundup

[Peter Bex]

Hello everyone,

This weekend's hackathon was a great success.  Fun was had by all, and lots
of work got done.  Most importantly, a number of new people have become
more active in the project.

Summary
---

We have accomplished the following things:

- About twenty eggs got their old-style HTML documentation translated to
   the wiki format.
- We managed to break the wiki a couple of times, resulting in improvements
   to svnwiki.
- New syntax for documenting eggs in the wiki was implemented
   (http://chicken.wiki.br/wiki-syntax-chicken).
- We worked on Chicken tutorials for 'blub' programmers, for several
   values of 'blub': Ruby, Python and PHP.  A Chicken for Java tutorial
   is currently in the works, too.
- A document about how to hack on Chicken's core and the release process
   is currently underway.
- The eggs for release 2 of Chicken have found their way from the
   toplevel directory of the repository to the release/2 subdirectory,
   resulting in a clearer layout  of the repos.
- A number of programs on the Great Language Shootout game at
   http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/ have been improved so that Chicken
   will get a fairer comparison to other languages who have been
   spending more time on optimizing their shootout programs.

As you can see, the results are quite impressive.  I would like to thank
everyone who participated and made this possible!

What's next?


The hackathon may be over, but work will continue.  We should keep up
the momentum that we have gained during the hackathon and continue working
on the things to do.  There are still lots of eggs with old-style HTML
documentation.  These need to be translated to wiki syntax.  It should
be possible to automatically convert the eggdoc documentation, so these
are not our priority right now.  Furthermore, the
chicken-for-blub-programmers documents can use some attention of 'blub'
language experts.

But most important of all, feel free to work on whatever *you* find
interesting and fun, to improve Chicken even more!

Thanks again, everyone!

Cheers,
Peter
-- 
http://sjamaan.ath.cx
--
"The process of preparing programs for a digital computer
 is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically
 and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic
 experience much like composing poetry or music."
-- Donald Knuth


pgp8Ouq1sJisE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] recursive mutex-lock!

[Daishi Kato]

At Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:52:25 -0800,
Vincent Manis wrote:
> 
> On 2008 Feb 25, at 00:19, Daishi Kato wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > SRFI-18 states,
> >
> > The mutex primitives specified in this SRFI do not implement  
> > "recursive" mutex semantics; an attempt to lock a mutex that is  
> > locked implies that the current thread must wait even if the mutex  
> > is owned by the current thread
> >
> > so, I want a macro or procedure to support "recursive" mutex.
> > Would be glad someone can note on it.
> >
> > Here's my macro, not sure if it works:
> > Isn't there a similar code?
> >
> > (define my-mutex (make-mutex))
> > (define-macro (my-lock . body)
> >  `(let ([result #f])
> > (if (eq? (mutex-state my-mutex) (current-thread))
> > (set! result (begin ,@body))
> > ;;else
> > (begin
> >   (mutex-lock! my-mutex)
> >   (set! result (begin ,@body))
> >   (mutex-unlock! my-mutex)))
> > result))
> >
> I have actually never used the Chicken threading capabilities, but  
> with almost
> any mutex code it's a safe bet that there's  race condition. In this  
> case, is
> it possible that the mutex could become locked between a false eq?  
> result and
> the call of mutex-lock! ?
> 
> I think recursive mutex locking almost always needs a conditional lock  
> operation.

Yes, that was my question, too.
I was writing with a conditional lock for this,
but wondering if it might be ok with this case
of eq?ing with (current-thread).

Any other comments?
--daishi


___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] recursive mutex-lock!

[Vincent Manis]

On 2008 Feb 25, at 00:19, Daishi Kato wrote:


Hi,

SRFI-18 states,

The mutex primitives specified in this SRFI do not implement  
"recursive" mutex semantics; an attempt to lock a mutex that is  
locked implies that the current thread must wait even if the mutex  
is owned by the current thread


so, I want a macro or procedure to support "recursive" mutex.
Would be glad someone can note on it.

Here's my macro, not sure if it works:
Isn't there a similar code?

(define my-mutex (make-mutex))
(define-macro (my-lock . body)
 `(let ([result #f])
(if (eq? (mutex-state my-mutex) (current-thread))
(set! result (begin ,@body))
;;else
(begin
  (mutex-lock! my-mutex)
  (set! result (begin ,@body))
  (mutex-unlock! my-mutex)))
result))

I have actually never used the Chicken threading capabilities, but  
with almost
any mutex code it's a safe bet that there's  race condition. In this  
case, is
it possible that the mutex could become locked between a false eq?  
result and

the call of mutex-lock! ?

I think recursive mutex locking almost always needs a conditional lock  
operation.


-- v


___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

[Chicken-users] recursive mutex-lock!

[Daishi Kato]

Hi,

SRFI-18 states,

The mutex primitives specified in this SRFI do not implement "recursive" mutex 
semantics; an attempt to lock a mutex that is locked implies that the current 
thread must wait even if the mutex is owned by the current thread

so, I want a macro or procedure to support "recursive" mutex.
Would be glad someone can note on it.

Here's my macro, not sure if it works:
Isn't there a similar code?

(define my-mutex (make-mutex))
(define-macro (my-lock . body)
  `(let ([result #f])
 (if (eq? (mutex-state my-mutex) (current-thread))
 (set! result (begin ,@body))
 ;;else
 (begin
   (mutex-lock! my-mutex)
   (set! result (begin ,@body))
   (mutex-unlock! my-mutex)))
 result))


--daishi


___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users