Tony Garnock-Jones writes:
> I'm seeing some very strange behaviour from `atomic-box-swap!` (but
> not `atomic-box-compare-and-swap!`) on Guile 3.0.9 from Homebrew on
> OSX Sonoma using an M3 Pro cpu. The issue does not seem to manifest on
> x86_64. Could it be some interaction between Guile and
Hello all,
I'm seeing some very strange behaviour from `atomic-box-swap!` (but not
`atomic-box-compare-and-swap!`) on Guile 3.0.9 from Homebrew on OSX
Sonoma using an M3 Pro cpu. The issue does not seem to manifest on
x86_64. Could it be some interaction between Guile and M3 CPUs?
Or am I ju
Hello there,
I have bumped into an interesting issue with GNU Guile 3.0.9 (as shipped via
GNU GUIX).
Consider a file -- file1.scm -- with the following definition over-riding the
built-in procedure vector-length:
(define (vector-length whatever) "over-ridden")
Now, consider another file -- fi
On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 10:59:23PM +0200, pinoaffe wrote:
> Dear guilers,
>
> When using with-output-to-string, the output of external processes
> started using system* and the like is not redirected to the temporary
> port. As far as I can tell, it just redirects things written/displayed
> from w
Dear guilers,
When using with-output-to-string, the output of external processes
started using system* and the like is not redirected to the temporary
port. As far as I can tell, it just redirects things written/displayed
from within guile.
This seems to be a bug, or if this is intended behaviour
I tried this on guile 2.2.0 and the localhost queries seem to work OK. — Matt
mwette$ ./15227 server
;;; note: auto-compilation is enabled, set GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE=0
;;; or pass the --no-auto-compile argument to disable.
;;; compiling /Users/mwette/proj/scheme/guile/bugs-guile/./15227
;;;
Mark, do you have any thoughts on this one?
A
On Mon 03 Aug 2015 06:29, Rob Browning writes:
> Rob Browning writes:
>
>> To follow up, it does look like it might be broken, but you can ignore
>> my suggested fix.
>
> I'm not that familiar with srfi-64, but it looks like the problem (if
> it's
bug in (web client) there. I've included a
> script and further details below.
>
> #!/usr/local/bin/guile \
> -e main -s
> !#
> ;; guile-web-server-osx-bug.scm
> ;;
> ;; This script demonstrates a possible bug in Guile's web server on
> ;; Mac OS
Rob Browning writes:
> To follow up, it does look like it might be broken, but you can ignore
> my suggested fix.
I'm not that familiar with srfi-64, but it looks like the problem (if
it's not expected) is that test-group doesn't handle the case where it's
creating the first group, i.e. no prior
Rob Browning writes:
> Rob Browning writes:
>
>> With 2.0.11(-deb+1-9):
>>
>> scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (srfi srfi-64))
>> scheme@(guile-user)> (test-group "foo" 13)
>> :2:0: In procedure #> input>:2:0 ()>:
>> :2:0: In procedure struct_vtable: Wrong type argument in
>> position
Rob Browning writes:
> With 2.0.11(-deb+1-9):
>
> scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (srfi srfi-64))
> scheme@(guile-user)> (test-group "foo" 13)
> :2:0: In procedure #:2:0
> ()>:
> :2:0: In procedure struct_vtable: Wrong type argument in
> position 1 (expecting struct): #f
>
> Changing
With 2.0.11(-deb+1-9):
scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (srfi srfi-64))
scheme@(guile-user)> (test-group "foo" 13)
:2:0: In procedure #:2:0
()>:
:2:0: In procedure struct_vtable: Wrong type argument in
position 1 (expecting struct): #f
Changing the syntax-case to use "body ..." instea
tags 16726 notabug
thanks
Hi,
Nigel Warner writes:
> This file is an extract of a documentation and code assembly process
> which works from a list of elements and attributes. Perhaps I'm
> being particularly stupid but I can't see why the function
> emit-groff-bug? does not work as expe
#|
This file is an extract of a documentation and code assembly process
which works from a list of elements and attributes. Perhaps I'm
being particularly stupid but I can't see why the function
emit-groff-bug? does not work as expected.
Version is 2.09 GCC is 4.7.3 on 64 bit Ubuntu sel
Shane Celis writes:
> ;; GNU/Linux bug
> ;;
> ;;
> ;; Info
> ;;
> ;;
> ;; $ uname -a
> ;; Linux debian 3.2.0-4-686-pae #1 SMP Debian 3.2.46-1 i686 GNU/Linux
> ;;
> ;; $ guile --version
> ;; guile (GNU Guile) 2.0.9 [...]
> ;;
> ;; $ bash ./build-aux/config.guess
> ;; i686-pc-lin
tes a possible bug in Guile's web server on
;; Mac OS X. And it demonstrates a possible bug in Guile's web client
;; on GNU/Linux.
;;
;; Problem
;; ===
;;
;; Using Guile's (web server) with an example program, I ran into the
;; following issue on Mac OS X: If I ran
;; "./gui
Greetings
I am not sure if I am missing something but I have observed strange
behaviour while exporting generics from modules. I have tried to
replicate this in the small example pasted below. Basically generics
are sometimes not getting exported when they are extended after
importing from other m
Joost Helberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If not, can you fix it? :-)
>
> Not necessary.
Ok, thanks!
> Is there a way to extend srfi-19, or to make up a new one?
I hope so. I'm not really familiar with the SRFI process, but it
looks like you need to start a new SRFI to bugfix an exist
Marius,
>>>>> "Marius" == Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: possible bug in srfi-19 implementation (fix included)
> From: Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I'm using guile-1.6.0 and srfi-19 for date stuff.
> It seems that the week-numbers are not calculated correctly, as it
> returns week 0 for all dates between 2002-1-1 and 2002-1-12. All other
> weeknumbers after the 12th are 2 off.
I find this date mangling stuff quit
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:03:19 +0200
(define (mydatetoweeknumber dt) [...])
Is my solution acceptable? If not, is there anyone who can implement
a better solution?
looks like your solution codifies ISO-8601, but srfi-19 does not specify
ISO-8601. if it i
hi,
I'm using guile-1.6.0 and srfi-19 for date stuff.
It seems that the week-numbers are not calculated correctly, as it
returns week 0 for all dates between 2002-1-1 and 2002-1-12. All other
weeknumbers after the 12th are 2 off.
This is the stuff to reproduce it:
guile> (date-week-number (stri
check out: http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/docs/faq/guile-faq.html
thi
___
Bug-guile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
I don't expect this is actually a bug, probably just inexperience Linux
user error...but here's what happens.
Environment:
RedHat 7.1 Server (Compaq 266Mz hardware)
Ximian Gnome Desktop
Both OS and Ximian updated with all patches as of 9/20/2001 via Ximian's
tool
Perl updated to 5.6 with Tk, LW
Hi!
The following patch fixes my problem. Seems, that (module-re-export! ...)
uses (module-variable ...) instead of (module-local-variable ...), so I
added it to (resolve-interface ...).
Note, that I'm not sure what I'm doing here, because I'm not familiar with
the module system ...
Regards,
Hi!
Using two classes in two modules, one inheriting from the other an accessor,
I got problems when trying to use the accessor *and* using :select on the
:use-module option.
A short example is appended.
I've seen this behavior with the recently announced 1.5.1. Not tested with
any other versi
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Manuel Heras-Gilsanz wrote:
> Have a look at this session output:
>
> --
> [manuel@manuel manuel]$ guile
> guile> (define cont #f)
> guile> (+ 5 (call-with-current-continuation
> (lambda (k)
>(set! cont k)
>
Dear Sir/Madam,
I think there is a bug in the implementation of
call-with-current-continuation in guile-1.4.
Have a look at this session output:
--
[manuel@manuel manuel]$ guile
guile> (define cont #f)
guile> (+ 5 (call-with-current-continuation
(lambda (k)
28 matches
Mail list logo
