On 9/3/07, Shawn Rutledge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/3/07, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So go with the flonums; they're simpler.
>
> If I take that approach maybe it makes more sense to use srfi-18 time
> objects. They consist of only a single flonum, right? rather than
>From
On 9/3/07, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So go with the flonums; they're simpler.
If I take that approach maybe it makes more sense to use srfi-18 time
objects. They consist of only a single flonum, right? rather than
seconds (which ought to have been a fixnum but instead must be a
rou
On 9/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a bunch of syntax-case macros that should be available at runtime,
> so that eval is able to use them. I'm compiling statically. What is the
> simplest way to achieve this?
You first have to create a statically linkable ve
On 9/3/07, Shawn Rutledge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It would be nice if there were a way to keep 32-bit numbers that have
> been received from C, store them that way inside the time object, pass
> them across s11n that way, and only convert to bignum when you call
> (time-second).
You could p
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 10:31:50AM -0300, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote:
>> I am not sure how to interpret this. I need a working chicken for
>> the installation of 2.637 - or not?
> You don't need it. Just grab the snapshot from, say,
> http://chicken.wiki.br/dev-snapshots/2007/09/01 and build i
Hi Benedikt,
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 15:24:04 +0200 Benedikt Rosenau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 07:12:20PM +0200, felix winkelmann wrote:
>
> > I assume some build broke there. Or probably some leftovers from
> > old installs. Removing remnants like this and installing from
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 07:12:20PM +0200, felix winkelmann wrote:
> I assume some build broke there. Or probably some leftovers from
> old installs. Removing remnants like this and installing from scratch
> should help in any case.
I am not sure how to interpret this. I need a working chicken for
AFAIK s11n does not take into account different byte-ordering which is
likely to be an issue if you are communicating across different hardware.
Cheers,
John.
Shawn Rutledge wrote:
I'm looking into ways for Scheme processes to communicate with each
other. s11n caught my eye. It's pretty coo
On 9/3/07, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shawn Rutledge scripsit:
>
> > Unix timestamps are annoying in Scheme because nowadays they take up
> > most of a 32-bit unsigned int, so it won't fit in a fixnum. If I want
> > to pass a timeval from a C function to Scheme, I see that the
> > uns
Hi all,
I have made some changes to the Debian scripts to handle the new
Chicken build system, and I have built Chicken 2.7 packages for the
current Debian stable distribution (etch). Instructions on how to
install those packages are here:
http://galinha.ucpel.tche.br:8080//Debian%20packages
Shawn Rutledge scripsit:
> Unix timestamps are annoying in Scheme because nowadays they take up
> most of a 32-bit unsigned int, so it won't fit in a fixnum. If I want
> to pass a timeval from a C function to Scheme, I see that the
> unsigned-integer32 datatype gets converted to a flonum by defau
I'm looking into ways for Scheme processes to communicate with each
other. s11n caught my eye. It's pretty cool in general. One of the
first things I'm trying to write is a daemon which handles input from
/dev/input/* and provides events to another process which connects.
For the first version I
12 matches
Mail list logo
