Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] [5] Fix a few 64-bit issues

Hey Peter, On 2017-06-06 22:31, Peter Bex wrote: > I noticed two problems after looking over the file-modification-time > patches I recently submitted. [...] Attached are patches for this. Seems sound, pushed. > Strictly speaking, I suppose we should really add a new C_num_to_size_t > or such,

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Add unexport form for modules

Hi Peter, Firstly, thank you for the writeup. It takes time and energy to consider design issues like this, and your effort is appreciated. On 2017-06-07 22:07, Peter Bex wrote: > But my more immediate concern is with proliferation of the magic set of > special forms that's always available in a

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Add unexport form for modules

On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 22:07:56 +0200 Peter Bex wrote: > Both these proposals make me very very uneasy, for slightly different > but somewhat related reasons. I strongly agree with you on these points. How CHICKEN’s module definition works always seemed strange to me. R7RS is

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Add unexport form for modules

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 03:54:43PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:06 PM, wrote: > > Isn't it easy to forget particular identifiers that happen to start with > > "fp" > > as well? I think explicit "rename" imports are clearer and less error > >

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Add unexport form for modules

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:41:03PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 9:28 AM, megane wrote: > > If the module export list is not *, module-unexport-list is not used. In > > this case, it's enough to just remove the identifier to be unexported > > from the

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Add unexport form for modules

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:06 PM, wrote: Isn't it easy to forget particular identifiers that happen to start with > "fp" > as well? I think explicit "rename" imports are clearer and less error > prone. > My example is bad: you'd want to use it with a module where all

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Add unexport form for modules

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 9:28 AM, megane wrote: If the module export list is not *, module-unexport-list is not used. In > this case, it's enough to just remove the identifier to be unexported > from the module-export-list. > Very nice! While you are messing around with the

[Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Add unexport form for modules

Hi! This patch adds a counterpart for the export syntax form. The implementation is pretty straightforward. A new slot, called module-unexport-list, is added to the module record. Unexport adds identifiers to this list if the module export list is *. In ##sys#finalize-module all identifiers

Re: [Chicken-hackers] using tcc -run app.c # tcc, the tiny C compiler

On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:33:47 +0200 fire...@firemail.cc wrote: > which paths and %VARS do I need to set so I can use tcc -run ... > with all *.c stuff that chicken produces ? > Sorry, TCC is not supported, it doesn’t implement alloca() which is needed by CHICKEN. Also, this kind of questions is

[Chicken-hackers] using tcc -run app.c # tcc, the tiny C compiler

which paths and %VARS do I need to set so I can use tcc -run ... with all *.c stuff that chicken produces ? ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers