Re: [Chicken-users] Re: new egg documentation bootstrap

2009-12-18 Thread Jim Ursetto
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Sven Hartrumpf hartru...@gmx.net wrote: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:12:52 -0500, ddp wrote: Besides, I live in emacs.  Why do I have to edit in this little weird box with almost none of my normal keymap? That can be solved by using a browser with a suitable editor

Re: [Chicken-users] Re: new egg documentation bootstrap

2009-12-18 Thread Peter Bex
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 06:12:52PM -0500, Derrell Piper wrote: At some level I understand the promise of the wiki but I also think they all mostly suck. I don't think the seductive allure of 1,000,000 monkeys compensates for prose that becomes a testament to multiple personality disorder with

[Chicken-users] Re: new egg documentation bootstrap

2009-12-18 Thread Derrell Piper
Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl writes: I've written huge slabs of text to document big pieces of previously undocumented code not written by me (sxml-transforms and ssax, notably). Who says users can't become subject matter experts on the subject of their favorite eggs? Oh sure, I didn't mean

[Chicken-users] Re: new egg documentation bootstrap

2009-12-18 Thread Derrell Piper
Jim Ursetto zbignie...@gmail.com writes: Normally when creating a new page I edit the file directly with emacs in an SVN checkout of the wiki, occasionally copy/pasting to preview it in an edit box. The plugin Sven mentions would automate the copy and paste part. When finished I usually

[Chicken-users] How to increase the trace output?

2009-12-18 Thread Christian Kellermann
Dear Chicken fans, I am debugging some code that fails during macro expansion in csc like this: Syntax error: illegal atomic form #procedure (write-char c3201 . tmp32003202) Expansion history: syntax(let426 ((out424 (#%open-output-string))) (let426