On Feb 4, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Michele La Monaca wrote:
> The goal of this patch is to cache build-related variables to avoid to
> repeat them in every single make invocation after the first one.
> [...] For example:
>
> make PREFIX=/tmp/chicken ARCH=x86-64
> vi file_to_be_fixed
> make
> make insta
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:20 AM, Michele La Monaca <
mikele.chic...@lamonaca.net> wrote:
> [..] I don't think
>
> (substring2 "foo" 0 10) -> "foo"
>
> is conceptually wrong or sloppy as long as you know exactly what the
> semantic of the function is ("give me at most N chars" -> perl or
> "giv
Michele La Monaca writes:
> The goal of this patch is to cache build-related variables
No, please, don't!
--
HE CE3OH...
___
Chicken-hackers mailing list
Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
The attached patch removes the use of PROGRAM_PREFIX and
PROGRAM_SUFFIX in the include-directory name for the target "dev"
installation in a cross-chicken build.
cheers,
felix
>From f7c3c7191bd052685f655dc4c5cef0e0920eb4ab Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: felix
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 22:34:20 +010
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 07:20:28PM +0100, Michele La Monaca wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Excuse me if I have been somehow rude but, you know,
> we both have strong ideas.
Same here! This is something I feel strongly about and sometimes that
leads to heated replies. I should really learn to put aside
Michele La Monaca scripsit:
> Regarding the practical aspects of the issue, I hope you might agree
> with me that substring2 if far superior to substring1.
All you're arguing now is that it's substring2 that deserves the name
"substring", since the slice function already does what you want.
That
Hi Peter,
wow! What a long and articulate response! Thanks for that, I really
appreciate the time and effort you put in it. I also understand (and
appreciate again) your attempt to inculcate in me a different way of
thinking, but unfortunately, at least for now, my antibodies are at
work. Maybe on
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 12:55:16AM +0100, Michele La Monaca wrote:
> What I can say... Well, maybe one day I will see the light, in the
> meanwhile I would just have preferred a more useful substring
> function. I really think that the one provided by chicken is simply
> not on par with other langu
