On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 06:00:17PM +0100, Michele La Monaca wrote:
While backslash-escaping is equivalent to its corresponding quoting,
the same is not true for caret-escaping. Depending on the context one
is more appropriate than the other. AFAICT the general rule is to
use double-quoting for
Fellow Chickeneers,
I just had the following problem (again): I tagged a new version of the
lowdown egg (0.0.6). While doing so I realized that the previous tag
(0.0.5) still installed itself as 0.0.4 via the install-extension
invocation in its .setup file. This lead me to think over the whole
Hi der gute Moritz,
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:51:22 +0100 Moritz Heidkamp mor...@twoticketsplease.de
wrote:
I just had the following problem (again): I tagged a new version of the
lowdown egg (0.0.6). While doing so I realized that the previous tag
(0.0.5) still installed itself as 0.0.4 via
Hi all,
maybe that's not a wishlist entry, but just me missing somthing?
When adding type declarations to some source, which has grown
for over a decade, I ran into this situation:
There's are widespread use cases of some types, which are actually
implemented as vectors, pairs or lists with a
Hi,
have you tried define-type:
syntax(define-type NAME TYPE)/syntax
Defines a type-abbreviation {{NAME}} that can be used in place of
{{TYPE}}. Type-abbreviations defined inside a module are not visible
outside of that module.
___
Chicken-hackers
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl wrote:
Do you have a reference where we can read up on this caret escaping?
I think you already provided one:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc723564.aspx
If it's context-dependent it seems like it would be impossible
