What version of chicken are you using?
(felix)
On 5/30/06, Alejandro Forero Cuervo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi.
The following code generates a segmentation fault in my machine:
(define-external (foo) c-string #f)
((foreign-safe-lambda* void () foo();))
I was expecting the call to
On 5/30/06, Alejandro Forero Cuervo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More weirdness.
If I run the following
(define-external (foo ((const c-string) arg)) void
(display arg) (newline))
((foreign-safe-lambda* void () foo(\text\);))
I get
#pointer 8049514
Here is a patch to
Greetings,
Looking at the definition of length in chicken, I noticed that it
detects neither circularities nor improper lists. For example:
(length '(1 2 . 3)) = 2
and
(length (let ((x (cons 1 2))) (set-cdr! x x) x)) = infinite loop.
I'm wondering if this is a bug, or a design decision. And
On Mon, 29 May 2006, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:
What is the list length of (1 . 2) anyway? Only 1 makes sense.
Hmm, I think throwing an error, ÿÿjust like (length 'foo) doesÿÿ, would
make more sense than returning 1 for (length '(1 . 2)).
I vote for returning 1.5 ;-)
cu,
Here is a patch to compiler.scm:
snip
Thanks, Felix! As soon as the next release with this patch is made,
I'll simplify my changes to the readline egg (which are slightly
obfuscated because of this and the other bug I reported). Not that
I'm in a hurry. ;-)
Alejo.
On 5/29/06, felix winkelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/29/06, Graham Fawcett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was just thinking about what's happening now in the Python
community. A well-known Python developer dumped all of the official
documentation into a Wiki / content management system,
But if this is to be the official documentation source, I'm a little
concerned about the lack of semantic cues. For example, in the snippet
above, the same markup is used for both the example and the sample
implementation; and the procedure signature is weakly marked up
using whitespace.
On 5/30/06, Alejandro Forero Cuervo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But if this is to be the official documentation source, I'm a little
concerned about the lack of semantic cues. [snip]
I will certainly add some tags. I absolutely agree with you.
I'll probably use a format based in tags (ala
On May 30, 2006, at 9:35 AM, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:
But if this is to be the official documentation source, I'm a little
concerned about the lack of semantic cues. For example, in the
snippet
above, the same markup is used for both the example and the sample
implementation; and the
Am Dienstag, den 30.05.2006, 11:35 -0500 schrieb Alejandro Forero
Cuervo:
But if this is to be the official documentation source, I'm a little
concerned about the lack of semantic cues. For example, in the snippet
above, the same markup is used for both the example and the sample
So why not xml at the end? At least as the canonical format.
Because wiki format is easier for humans to work with.
I know there are editors for XML, but I don't think they can compare
with the ease of use of typing wiki-syntax in one's favorite text
editor. Since, as you point out, one can
There is a bug in the SRFI reference implementation used by Chicken
(and various other Schemes) for LIST=. The bug was characterized
by saccade and found by Riastradh. Here is a revised definition
of LIST=:
(define (list= = . lists)
(or (null? lists) ; special case
(let lp1 ((list-a
I'm building on MSYS from Darcs using CMake. The build fails:
Generating eval.c
Warning: illegal declaration specifier
`(no-procedure-checks-for-usual-bindings)
[...eval.c is generated without error. Then later...]
Building C object CMakeFiles/libchicken-static.dir/eval.obj
In file
This is just a minor suggestion for an improvement to csi.
When in csi you load an extension A which depends on an extension B
and you latter load the extension B, you don't get the syntax
definitions from extension B. I think you should.
Here is one example:
csi (use stream-ext)
;
The following code is giving me a strange behaviour:
(use posix)
(let loop ()
(receive (in out pid)
(process foo)
(newline out))
(loop))
I expect it to loop indefinitely (nevermind the lack of a call to
process-wait) but it terminates the csi process
Hi I have what is probably just a general scheme question which hopefully
can quickly be answered.
Here's a sample of what I'm trying to do:
(define jim
(lambda (fun)
(letrec ((self (lambda (a) (+ 1 a
(fun 5
(jim (lambda (b) b))
5
(jim (lambda (b) (self b)))
A smart-link for SRFI docs would be nice, so one could write
something like, see ((srfi-1)) for details and get a proper link to
the official SRFI doc.
Good idea. :-)
svnwiki supports user-defined (wiki-specific) linktypes. I added one
for the SRFI documents: [[srfi:40]] gets expanded to
17 matches
Mail list logo
