On 2017-06-05 12:11, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 05:53:32PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote:
> > On 2017-06-04 13:53, Peter Bex wrote:
> > > Regarding time specifically, there are not many stand-alone programs
> > > that will use this macro, I think. It's more a thing for benchmarks
> > >
On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 05:53:32PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote:
> Hey Peter,
>
> On 2017-06-04 13:53, Peter Bex wrote:
> > Regarding time specifically, there are not many stand-alone programs
> > that will use this macro, I think. It's more a thing for benchmarks
> > and such, so I'm not even sure i
Hey Peter,
On 2017-06-04 13:53, Peter Bex wrote:
> Regarding time specifically, there are not many stand-alone programs
> that will use this macro, I think. It's more a thing for benchmarks
> and such, so I'm not even sure it must be part of library. It probably
> was in there because the macro
> I think we should strive to make library the first, and potentially the
> only, unit that the user needs to care about when distributing compiled
> C or compiling programs with "-explicit-use". These changes move things
> further away from that ideal by making programs that use the `time`
> macro
On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 11:20:06PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote:
> I'm concerned about the way these introduce an implicit dependency from
> the library unit to the internal unit.
>
> I think we should strive to make library the first, and potentially the
> only, unit that the user needs to care about
Hi Peter,
Sorry for the delay, I should have responded earlier.
On 2017-06-03 15:07, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 08:29:12AM +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
> > On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 06:02:51PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote:
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > Just wanted to mention that I've already
On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 08:29:12AM +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 06:02:51PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Just wanted to mention that I've already applied the first of these
> > patches; that one is clearly a nice change and definitely where those
> > procedur
On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 06:02:51PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Just wanted to mention that I've already applied the first of these
> patches; that one is clearly a nice change and definitely where those
> procedures belong, good call.
Is there a problem with the other ones, or have
Hi folks,
Just wanted to mention that I've already applied the first of these
patches; that one is clearly a nice change and definitely where those
procedures belong, good call.
I also have a take on eval.scm that I will try to clean up and post
shortly.
Evan
signature.asc
Description: PGP sig
