OK, I didn't see this because it wasn't attached to the ticket. I posted an
alternate patch on #1014 which just addresses the "old data" problem in
string->time. As far as I can tell, the various uses of C_tm can not interfere
with each other and all one needs to do is initialize C_tm to a san
On Sat, 25 May 2013 02:01:24 +0200 Christian Kellermann
wrote:
> * Moritz Heidkamp [130525 01:49]:
>> The private repository path tests didn't work when run from inside a
>> path containing symlinks because runtests.sh didn't expand symlinks
>> while the -private-repository mechanism does. This
* Moritz Heidkamp [130525 01:49]:
> The private repository path tests didn't work when run from inside a
> path containing symlinks because runtests.sh didn't expand symlinks
> while the -private-repository mechanism does. This lead the test
> assertion which compares the two paths to fail.
Ah go
The private repository path tests didn't work when run from inside a
path containing symlinks because runtests.sh didn't expand symlinks
while the -private-repository mechanism does. This lead the test
assertion which compares the two paths to fail.
>From 464869bde8c7d70af42cc7b9530181bb78698370
Hm. At the moment I'm short of imagination how much overhead these
internal jumps would incur. I can't yet imagine that those would be
for free. Could they?
If I follow John's intention, then it could look something like a switch
statement or a series of elseif branches involving simple co
On May 24 2013, John Cowan wrote:
I've always thought that case-lambda should be built into the core,
so that simple tail recursions, like this:
(define foo (case-lambda
((bar baz) ...)
((baz) (foo #f baz
can be rewritten as a varargs function with appropriate internal jumps,
without the
Hi all,
Attached is a bit of a nasty patch which slightly cleans up the even
nastier C macro hackery in posixunix/posixwin/posix-common.
This fixes #1014, which was created by David Krentzlin today.
I'd appreciate if someone could test whether this does not break
anything on Windows. The posixw
Jörg F. Wittenberger scripsit:
> On May 22 2013, Peter Bex wrote:
> >We already knew the SRFI implementations shipped with CHICKEN are
> >extremely inefficient. It's been a plan to rewrite some of them
> >using faster internal versions for a while. Also, the design of
> >SRFI-1 and SRFI-13 is pr
Try to compile this code, csc will complain about a known
procedure called with the wrong number of arguments:
(let ((x (lambda (y) (+ y 1 (x 2 3))
Now try this equivalent code, csc will happily accept it.
(Thus converting the compile-time error into a run-time error.)
((lambda (x) (x 2 3))
On May 22 2013, Peter Bex wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:40:49PM +0200, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
...
Maybe it's worth to consider to change the way arguments and return
values are passed in Chicken. I know this would be the usual hell to
implement.
That sounds extremely painful indeed,
10 matches
Mail list logo