On 10/4/05, Patrick Brannan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, I have attached my CMakeLists.txt file for you to look at. Several
parts could be optimized with some thought. For one thing, building all of
the scm files at the end (csi, chicken-setup, etc) could be handled in a
FOREACH loop.
On 10/3/05, felix winkelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/3/05, Raffael Cavallaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using the latest 2.2 release, with (or without) the hash patch, if I
compile the simple-macros egg and try to use it and, for example the
posix extension, I get odd errors:
#;1
Am 04.10.2005, 13:42 Uhr, schrieb Thomas Chust [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[...]
I will have to duplicate a whole bunch of code from CHICKEN's tcp unit,
though. It's just a matter of copy and paste, but my question to Felix
is, whether it wouldn't perhaps make sense to export all the ##net#...
On 10/4/05, Michele Simionato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/3/05, Peter Keller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I have seen very similar discussions on python-dev. There most people
are strongly advocating *against* threads and consider as viable alternatives
cooperative multitasking and
On 10/4/05, Will M. Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know what Twisted is, but you might have a look at Termite
(mentioned in this blog
http://patricklogan.blogspot.com/2005/07/termite-lisp-for-distributed-
computing.html ); it sounds like what you're talking about done in
Gambit-C.
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 02:40:42PM -0400, Graham Fawcett wrote:
On 10/4/05, Will M. Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know what Twisted is, but you might have a look at Termite
(mentioned in this blog
http://patricklogan.blogspot.com/2005/07/termite-lisp-for-distributed-
On 10/4/05, Peter Keller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Like where is the debugging manual for Twisted? It isn't obvious...
I'm not sure if things have changed in the past year or so, but one
could ask, Like where is the *documentation* for Twisted? It isn't
obvious... ;-)
To be fair, most of my use
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 03:46:41PM -0400, Graham Fawcett wrote:
I don't think there's any
silver bullet here. Nonetheless, a complex single-process/non-blocking
app is arguably easier to debug than a complex multi-threaded app,
since at least you can guarantee that it's only doing one thing at
Am 04.10.2005, 20:46 Uhr, schrieb Peter Keller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[...]
What if the messages that a message passing system used were themselves
continuations? Chicken already compiles to continuation passing style,
so what would it mean to package up the continuation and move it to
another
At Tue, 04 Oct 2005 15:43:00 -, Thomas Chust wrote:
I hope I have put it as simply as possible while still being correct...
These are only the procedures that concern themselves with *loading* of
code, though. In addition there are at least two module systems available
for CHICKEN:
Thomas Chust wrote:
Am 03.10.2005, 15:47 Uhr, schrieb Patrick Brannan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[...]
1. Note that I had to name the exe chicken_d. I could easily rename
it in a
later step, but the point is that CMake doesn't seem to easily support
custom file names. Files will be named for the
11 matches
Mail list logo
