Andrei Barbu schrieb:
Hi,
The patch to the qt egg is at http://0xab.com/patches/qt-0.100.patch
The build system for the svn version is hopelessly broken on my
machines (a fairly standard Gentoo amd64, and a standard Debian Lenny
install), so I replaced it with the one that I'm using. I'm willing
Hello,
I understand syntax-rules and Common Lisp's defmacro, but I'm
still getting acquainted with Chicken's implementation of
explicitly renaming macros. So far I have had success in writing
simple macros, but there's one thing I don't understand.
This program seems to work fine when loaded from
2010/4/15 Jeronimo Pellegrini :
> [...]
> This program seems to work fine when loaded from csi, but csc
> complains that a procedure used inside the renaming procedure
> is unbound (even though it was defined shortly before the
> macro definition):
> [...]
Hello Jeronimo,
the environment in which
Hi,
I'm working on bindings for a library (MPFI, a C library for
interval arithmetic [0]), which I'd like to make available as
an egg.
Most mpfi functions receive pointer to structures that represent
intervals, and the return value is the first argument:
mpfi_add (a, b, c); /* This is a <- b +
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 03:40:01PM +0200, Thomas Chust wrote:
> Hello Jeronimo,
Hi Thomas!
> the environment in which syntax transformers are run is distinct from
> the one in which the compiled code is eventually run. You probably
> want to use define-for-syntax instead of define to introduce yo
2010/4/15 Jeronimo Pellegrini :
> [...]
> Most mpfi functions receive pointer to structures that represent
> intervals, and the return value is the first argument:
>
> mpfi_add (a, b, c); /* This is a <- b + c */
>
> When translating this into Scheme, I thought I'd offer
> three versions of each f
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Shawn Rutledge
wrote:
> I'm sorry I still didn't get the qt egg ported to chicken 4. It
I mean the dbus egg. I didn't have anything to do with the qt egg so far.
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.or
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:33:51PM +0200, Thomas Chust wrote:
> Hello Jeronimo,
>
> thinking about it, I would only provide two wrappers per function: One
> destructive version that accepts two mandatory input arguments and an
> optional output argument defaulting to the first input argument. And
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Andrei Barbu wrote:
>>> I'm working on getting chicken into shape for writing applications on
>>> the Nokia N900. I've made a lot of changes to the qt egg over the past
That sounds like fun! I would like to go that direction some day too,
but not just yet... too
2010/4/15 Jeronimo Pellegrini :
> [...]
> I wonder if the optional argument would make the function call too much
> slower?
> [...]
Hello Jeronimo,
the optional argument processing will take a little time, but whether
that is relevant should be determined by a benchmark.
> [...]
> But there's a
10 matches
Mail list logo
