On 5/24/06, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
felix winkelmann scripsit:
> Not at all dumb - the documentation is a bit weak on that.
Can you lay out for us the principles behind what's built-in,
what's in a unit, and what ought to go in an egg?
Ok, say we have the following files:
; x.s
felix winkelmann scripsit:
> Not at all dumb - the documentation is a bit weak on that.
Can you lay out for us the principles behind what's built-in,
what's in a unit, and what ought to go in an egg?
--
John Cowanhttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please leave your va
On 5/23/06, Frédéric Peschanski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
==> mylib.scm
(declare (unit mylib))
(declare (export (foo bar)))
That should be `(declare (export foo bar))' (typo?)
==> myexample.scm
(load-library 'mylib "mylib.so")
(bar)
Probably there are missing links between the library fil
On 5/23/06, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kon Lovett scripsit:
> Suggest prefixing exported identifiers w/ 'fp'. There is an
> unreleased egg, fpfz, with related contents I could add.
Since these names are very commonplace, being used in C and other
Schemes as well as other languages, I
Dan scripsit:
> Maybe I'm just to tired, but the following doesn't
> seem right:
>
> cafe$ csi
> #;1> (let ((o (current-output-port)))
>(eval `(write 1 ,o)))
> Error: invalid syntax: #
>
> It works in SISC, but bombs in Guile and Scsh. What am
> I missing? And how can I pass a port value
felix winkelmann wrote:
I can remove the inclusion of windows.h. runtime.c for the gui-version
of libchicken needs it, though.
Ok please remove from "chicken.h", and leave the note about
it interfering with , so that nobody puts it back.
Also please remove from posixwin.scm. or
pulls
Maybe I'm just to tired, but the following doesn't
seem right:
cafe$ csi
#;1> (let ((o (current-output-port)))
(eval `(write 1 ,o)))
Error: invalid syntax: #
It works in SISC, but bombs in Guile and Scsh. What am
I missing? And how can I pass a port value to an
eval'd expression ?
-- Dan
On Tue, 23 May 2006, Frédéric Peschanski wrote:
Thank you thomas for your insightful answer.
Sadly I tried again and now I have different but still
undefined symbols (only one in fact : C_pischeme_toplevel)
Hello Frédéric,
that surprises me a little. At least the top level of the explicitly
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 08:48:39AM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> > Suggest prefixing exported identifiers w/ 'fp'. There is an
> > unreleased egg, fpfz, with related contents I could add.
>
> Since these names are very commonplace, being used in C and other
> Schemes as well as other languages, I t
Kon Lovett scripsit:
> Suggest prefixing exported identifiers w/ 'fp'. There is an
> unreleased egg, fpfz, with related contents I could add.
Since these names are very commonplace, being used in C and other
Schemes as well as other languages, I think this is unnecessary.
Why have sin but fpsin
Thank you thomas for your insightful answer.
Sadly I tried again and now I have different but still
undefined symbols (only one in fact : C_pischeme_toplevel)
What I understand is that I am probably wrong with the whole process.
So let's rethink the plan and explanation.
What I want to do is to
On May 22, 2006, at 10:23 PM, felix winkelmann wrote:
On 5/22/06, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As a side effect of my Joy-in-Scheme effort, I put together a tiny
Chicken shim providing access to the procedures in the ISO C89
header that are not available in Chicken already. Because
12 matches
Mail list logo
