Re: [Chicken-users] ANN: New egg released: Coq au Vin (blogware)

[Peter Bex]

On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 08:01:26PM -0600, Matt Gushee wrote:
> After many trials and tribulations, I am pleased to announce the
> initial release of Coq au Vin, a Chicken Scheme blogging engine.

Oh, this is very cool :)

> * There's an egg, which you should be able to install as soon as Mario
> adds it to the collection (Hi, Mario). I.e.,

I've added it just now. It should appear for download shortly.

Have you considered registering your coq-au-vin blog's Scheme tag
with Planet Scheme?

Cheers,
Peter
-- 
http://www.more-magic.net

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

Re: [Chicken-users] Unix Scripting in Chicken

[Alaric Snell-Pym]

On 12/10/13 05:49, Evan Hanson wrote:
> Hi Danny,
> 
> SCSH was made for just this, and Peter has ported much of it to
> CHICKEN -- have a look at the scsh-process egg:
> 
> http://wiki.call-cc.org/eggref/4/scsh-process

Also, I've been working on a set of tools for making UNIX shell
pipelines with Chicken, although I want to do more work on it before I
release it - feel free to check out trunk at:

https://www.kitten-technologies.co.uk/project/magic-pipes

> 
> Evan
> 

ABS

-- 
Alaric Snell-Pym
http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] ANN: New egg released: Coq au Vin (blogware)

[Matt Gushee]

Hi, Peter--

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:16 AM, Peter Bex  wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 08:01:26PM -0600, Matt Gushee wrote:
>> After many trials and tribulations, I am pleased to announce the
>> initial release of Coq au Vin, a Chicken Scheme blogging engine.
>
> Oh, this is very cool :)

I'm glad you think so.

> Have you considered registering your coq-au-vin blog's Scheme tag
> with Planet Scheme?

Uh, register the scheme tag I hadn't thought to create with the
aggregator whose existence I had forgotten about? Sounds like a good
idea! Thanks for the reminder!

--
Matt

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

Re: [Chicken-users] Unix Scripting in Chicken

[John Cowan]

Alaric Snell-Pym scripsit:

> Also, I've been working on a set of tools for making UNIX shell
> pipelines with Chicken, although I want to do more work on it before I
> release it - feel free to check out trunk at:
> 
> https://www.kitten-technologies.co.uk/project/magic-pipes

Nice!

Not Chicken- or even Scheme-related, but people who are interested
in pipeline tools that deal in things other than lines may like ssam.
It's the stream version of the sam editor (as sed is the stream version
of ed), and like sam, it uses regular expressions to define the "lines"
to be looped over.  Unlike sed, ssam allows arbitrarily nested loops.

Source at ;
it depends on the libutf library at
.

-- 
John Cowan  co...@ccil.org
"Not to know The Smiths is not to know K.X.U."  --K.X.U.

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

Re: [Chicken-users] srfi-19 'date?'

[John J Foerch]

Matt Gushee  writes:
> Hmm ...
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:11 AM, John J Foerch  
> wrote:
>
>> I noticed that srfi-19-date (version 3.3.4) does not export 'date?'.  I
>> think that perhaps it should.
>
> On my system:
>
> csi> (use srfi-19)
> ; loading /usr/lib/chicken/6/srfi-19.import.so ...
> ; loading /usr/lib/chicken/6/srfi-19-timezone.import.so ...
> ; loading /usr/lib/chicken/6/miscmacros.import.so ...
> ... and so on
>
> csi> date?
> #
>
> Note that I loaded 'srfi-19', not 'srfi-19-date'. So there is not an
> SRFI-conformance issue. But if your point is about having a logically
> consistent API,  ... yes, I see that srfi-19-time exports time?, and
> srfi-19-period exports time-period?, so you seem to have a valid
> point.
>
>> Also, 'date?' is not documented in the
>> egg docs (http://wiki.call-cc.org/eggref/4/srfi-19).
>
> If you read the intro to the egg doc, it states that "This document
> only describes the extensions [to the spec]."
>
> I'm not claiming this is not a problem. The way Scheme is modularized
> leads to a situation where documentation for closely-related functions
> can be scattered all over the four corners of the internet. I have
> long believed that this is a serious obstacle for anyone trying to
> master the language, and I haven't seen anyone deny that ... but I
> don't think anyone knows how to fix the problem. I have envisioned a
> sort of 'smart documentation aggregator' that would enable you to view
> in one place all the documents that logically go together. But that
> would require either (a) an insanely good search engine; (b) a
> Scheme-community-wide agreement to add certain kinds of metadata to
> all the docs everywhere (which would not be technically difficult, but
> would require an awful lot of work, and ... sounds like a herding-cats
> problem to me). Or you could screen-scrape everything, but then the
> system would break whenever anyone decided to change their
> documentation format.
>
> --
> Matt Gushee

Hello Matt,

Thank you, I confess I had glossed over that description paragraph, or
may have read it a long time ago and forgotten it.  I generally bring an
assumption to the chicken docs that they can be read in 'reference'
fashion, jumping here and there to find the information I'm after, not
having to worry about reading everything in sequence.  Then again, maybe
the document's title is misleading, since one assumes with a title of
"srfi-19" that the document would be about all of srfi-19, and if it's
not, a more descriptive title like "Chicken Extensions to SRFI-19" would
be more helpful.  However...

I think it would be a good idea for this document, and others like it,
to include entries for every one of the egg's exported symbols.  Even if
many of them were simply stubs like "See SRFI-19", this would help
readers avoid confusion.

As for 'date?', I was simply doing this:

  (use srfi-19-date)

The egg doc suggests this in the section "Core Procedures".  ("The core
procedures can be separately accessed: ... (require-extension
srfi-19-date)") This is why I think that srfi-19-date should export
'date?' - because it would be consistent with what is suggested by the
documentation.

Thank you!

-- 
John Foerch


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