Jörg F. Wittenberger scripsit:
>> I've never had much sympathy for the CL and R6RS viewpoint that
>> programmers should be able to count on a run-time exception being
>> raised when they've done something silly.
>
> Just because silly programs exist. I've contributed to that pile
> myself.
I d
On Mar 12 2012, John Cowan wrote:
Felix scripsit:
I used "pure" only half-heartedly. Strictly speaking a "pure" function
should not even throw an error, the "pure" meaning: this procedure will
not have any effect whatsoever, regardless of arguments (so it can be
removed if the result is unus
* Mario Domenech Goulart [120312 17:35]:
> > Regarding the other eggs that can be seen in the diff: skiplists breaks
> > because it depends on tuples.
>
> Hmmm. Not really. skiplists does not depend on tuples
> (http://tests.call-cc.org/master/linux/x86/2012/03/04/salmonella-report/dep-graphs/s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/12/2012 02:03 PM, Felix wrote:
>> Tell you what, shall I make it say (if (string? msg) msg "> assertion message was supplied>") or something like that? I'll think of
>> better wording.
>
> At run-time (I'd not recommend this, as it produces more
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:42:27 -0500 Mario Domenech Goulart
wrote:
> Something changed in the core that makes ugarit and tuples break on
> 2012/03/04. They were not breaking the day before.
>
> You can see the salmonella diff here:
> http://tests.call-cc.org/master/linux/x86/2012/03/04/yesterday-
Felix scripsit:
> I used "pure" only half-heartedly. Strictly speaking a "pure" function should
> not even throw an error, the "pure" meaning: this procedure will not have
> any effect whatsoever, regardless of arguments (so it can be removed if the
> result is unused). "(length 42)" will signal a
From: Alaric Snell-Pym
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Allow assert to accept an arbitrary
expression as the message
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:12:20 +
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 03/12/2012 11:52 AM, Felix wrote:
>
>> In the case of "assert", I think it
* felix winkelmann [120312 12:53]:
> > - [PATCH] Raise error on construction of too large vectors/blobs
> >(this is a long thread with multiple patches)
>
> I have to review this, since it seems to duplicate ##sys#check-range.
Oh, that has been your concern? I have completely misinterpreted
From: Peter Bex
Subject: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix a few more mistakes in types.db
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:05:28 +0100
> Hi there,
>
> I found a bug in the specialization for the ROUND procedure; the
> specialization calls C_a_i_flonum_round while it should call
> C_a_i_flonum_round_proper
>> Hm. Can't find that one.
>
> original mail:
> http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/chicken-hackers/2012-02/msg00050.html
>
> I replied to that twice, but nongnu has issues displaying the thread
> properly. So here's the link of my second reply directly:
> http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/
Here's a couple of links to the archive.
Luckily, nongnu doesn't scrub attachments :)
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:50:56PM +0100, Felix wrote:
> >
> > - [PATCH] fix special cases for vector/list-ref in scrutinizer when
> > argument count is wrong
> >(here there's a reply with a modified patch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/12/2012 11:52 AM, Felix wrote:
> In the case of "assert", I think it is not too much to expect the user
> to pass a string.
Tell you what, shall I make it say (if (string? msg) msg "") or something like that? I'll think of
better wording.
>
>
From: Alaric Snell-Pym
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Allow assert to accept an arbitrary
expression as the message
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 10:21:57 +
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 03/10/2012 11:54 AM, Felix wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately "->string" might not a
From: Peter Bex
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] pending patches
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 10:13:29 +0100
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 08:25:45AM +0100, Felix wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Too many patches are floating in limbo in the moment (and I'm aware of
>> being unable to catch up, particularly in the case
The CR (#792) has been accepted. Attached is the patch, once more.
cheers,
felix
>From e11bb2fec4d8ce13a5f4031980280ccaa8521fe6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: felix
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:46:13 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] deprecate 'make' syntax
---
manual/Extensions | 10 --
setup-api
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/10/2012 11:54 AM, Felix wrote:
> Unfortunately "->string" might not always be available in code that uses
> the "assert" syntax. It would be nice if "assert" only depended on the
> base library.
Ah-hah! Do you have a suggestion, or shall I do m
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 08:25:45AM +0100, Felix wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Too many patches are floating in limbo in the moment (and I'm aware of
> being unable to catch up, particularly in the case of the more involved
> patches which I really like to review before they go into "master").
There are no rea
From: Peter Bex
Subject: [Chicken-hackers] Clean versus pure in types.db
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 18:26:59 +0100
> Hi all,
>
> I was looking through types.db and noticed that some procedures
> were marked "clean" and others "pure". If I understand correctly,
> the difference is that "clean" proce
Hi!
Too many patches are floating in limbo in the moment (and I'm aware of
being unable to catch up, particularly in the case of the more involved
patches which I really like to review before they go into "master").
A suggestion: if a patch remains pending for a longer period, it might
be sensibl
19 matches
Mail list logo
