Re: [Chicken-users] thread makes csi eats lots of cpu

2008-07-11 Thread felix winkelmann
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:16 AM, William Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It prints the first number 0, which is called before thread-sleep!. After that, it'll wait for me to input something random(here, what?), then it'll continute running the thread. On Linux this runs fine, but I'll check that

Re: Chicken-setup redesign (was: Re: [Chicken-users] Re: getopt, getopt_long?)

2008-07-11 Thread felix winkelmann
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Peter Bex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 02:41:27PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: Of course, this would also require the possibility of loading a particular version of a library. I propose this syntax: (require-library foo (bar 1.2) (qux 1))

Re: Chicken-setup redesign (was: Re: [Chicken-users] Re: getopt, getopt_long?)

2008-07-11 Thread felix winkelmann
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Shawn Rutledge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I look at it this way: what is essential is the metadata, including the enumeration of the files that are included along with what they _are_. If I say here are my source files, here are my documentation files, and

Re: Chicken-setup redesign (was: Re: [Chicken-users] Re: getopt, getopt_long?)

2008-07-11 Thread felix winkelmann
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:08 AM, Elf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i can draft a proposal for how to fix things based on my own experiences both with the repo and with chicken-setup, if people are interested. Sure, I'd be interested. cheers, felix

Re: [Chicken-users] Re: getopt, getopt_long?

2008-07-11 Thread felix winkelmann
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:26 AM, William Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: felix winkelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think chicken-setup should NOT duplicate functionality that modern packaging tools provide. Dpkg and portage will always do a better job at that, and it would be more worthwhile

Re: [Chicken-users] Re: getopt, getopt_long?

2008-07-11 Thread Peter Bex
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 10:26:58AM +0900, William Xu wrote: felix winkelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think chicken-setup should NOT duplicate functionality that modern packaging tools provide. Dpkg and portage will always do a better job at that, and it would be more worthwhile to

Re: Chicken-setup redesign (was: Re: [Chicken-users] Re: getopt, getopt_long?)

2008-07-11 Thread Peter Bex
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 08:39:21AM +0200, felix winkelmann wrote: On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Peter Bex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 02:41:27PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: Of course, this would also require the possibility of loading a particular version of a library.

Re: [Chicken-users] Re: getopt, getopt_long?

2008-07-11 Thread Ivan Raikov
felix winkelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you say the egg format specified, what do you mean exactly? The .meta file, or a separate entity? I would like to have a single egg description file that is simply an alist with make rules, file groups and installation locations. You can call it

[Chicken-users] Re: thread makes csi eats lots of cpu

2008-07-11 Thread William Xu
felix winkelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: When the counter reaches five, your thread goes into an endless loop. This will of course consume all CPU time. Oops, sorry, i made a stupid mistake. The `thunk' body should all have been scoped within `when'. -- William

[Chicken-users] Re: Chicken-setup redesign

2008-07-11 Thread Alex Sandro Queiroz e Silva
Hallo, Shawn Rutledge wrote: Writing a separate setup script in addition to that should be optional, and rare. I don't like all the duplication of information with the current requirements for writing an egg. Unfortunately it's not so easy. For instance, different eggs need to be

Re: Chicken-setup redesign (was: Re: [Chicken-users] Re: getopt, getopt_long?)

2008-07-11 Thread Mario Domenech Goulart
Hi folks, On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:32:34 +0200 Peter Bex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 08:39:21AM +0200, felix winkelmann wrote: On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Peter Bex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 02:41:27PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: Of course,

Re: [Chicken-users] hygienic branch basically working

2008-07-11 Thread Jim Ursetto
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 4:49 AM, felix winkelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't be afraid to report bugs and offer critique! If I come over grumpy at times, it's just because the module- and macro stuff stresses my programming abilities to the limit... Hi Felix. The behavior below doesn't

[Chicken-users] Conditional expansion: #+

2008-07-11 Thread j . romildo
Hello. The stalin.scm source file, from the stalin egg, starts with #+(not csi) (include QobiScheme) (include architectures.scm) According to the manual, #+FEATURE EXPR is the conditional expansion, a non-standard read syntax, and it is equivalent to (cond-expand (FEATURE