Re: [Chicken-users] No... but it is... interesting...

2011-03-10 Thread Markus Klotzbuecher
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 09:15:15AM -0500, Felix wrote: > > This announces the availability of "SPOCK", a Scheme->JavaScript > compiler and runtime system. It can statically compile > really-nearly-mostly R5RS-Scheme to JS or can be used to dynamically > generate code from s-expressions (say, in a

Re: [Chicken-users] No... but it is... interesting...

2011-03-10 Thread Felix
> I've got three failures here on Firefox 3.6.15, Chrome 6.0.472.62 and > Arora 0.10.2 (webkit 532.4): > > (eq? car car) FAIL Yes, this is a known bug and related to the way primitives are implemented. > (not (eq? (quote bitBlt) (string->symbol "bitBlt"))) FAIL > (not (string->number "1e3"

Re: [Chicken-users] Big Randoms

2011-03-10 Thread Kon Lovett
On Mar 10, 2011, at 7:26 PM, David N Murray wrote: $ csi CHICKEN (c)2008-2010 The Chicken Team (c)2000-2007 Felix L. Winkelmann Version 4.6.0 macosx-unix-gnu-x86-64 [ 64bit manyargs dload ptables ] compiled 2010-12-08 on sauron.local (Darwin) #;1> (use srfi-27) [snip loadings] ; loading /usr/

[Chicken-users] Big Randoms

2011-03-10 Thread David N Murray
$ csi CHICKEN (c)2008-2010 The Chicken Team (c)2000-2007 Felix L. Winkelmann Version 4.6.0 macosx-unix-gnu-x86-64 [ 64bit manyargs dload ptables ] compiled 2010-12-08 on sauron.local (Darwin) #;1> (use srfi-27) [snip loadings] ; loading /usr/local/lib/chicken/5/numbers.import.so ... ; loading /us

Re: [Chicken-users] raw packet interface

2011-03-10 Thread Nicolas Pelletier
Hello, On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 23:09, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote: > > Using raw socket is quite portable, you'll probably need something > like filtering with pcap, and then using the raw socket to send your > stuff. For anything at or above the network layer, this seems to be a good solution

Re: [Chicken-users] No... but it is... interesting...

2011-03-10 Thread Mario Domenech Goulart
Hi Felix, On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:15:15 -0500 (EST) Felix wrote: > This announces the availability of "SPOCK", a Scheme->JavaScript > compiler and runtime system. It can statically compile > really-nearly-mostly R5RS-Scheme to JS or can be used to dynamically > generate code from s-expressions (

Re: [Chicken-users] No... but it is... interesting...

2011-03-10 Thread Felix
From: John Cowan Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] No... but it is... interesting... Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:57:07 -0500 >> The test-suite can be run at: > > I get one failure running on Chrome 10.0.648.127 beta for Windows: > (every-of #t) returns #f instead of #t. I'll check that. cheers, feli

Re: [Chicken-users] Re: No... but it is... interesting...

2011-03-10 Thread Felix
From: Ivan Shmakov Subject: [Chicken-users] Re: No... but it is... interesting... Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:01:29 +0600 > > How do the goals of SPOCK compare to those of Scheme2Js [1]? Is > it aimed at better R^5RS compliance, in particular? > Yes, scheme2js does not support tail

Re: [Chicken-users] No... but it is... interesting...

2011-03-10 Thread Erik Falor
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 09:15:15AM -0500, Felix wrote: > Hello! > > > This announces the availability of "SPOCK", a Scheme->JavaScript > compiler and runtime system. It can statically compile > really-nearly-mostly R5RS-Scheme to JS or can be used to dynamically > generate code from s-expressions

Re: [Chicken-users] No... but it is... interesting...

2011-03-10 Thread Jim Ursetto
On Mar 10, 2011, at 10:57 AM, John Cowan wrote: > I get one failure running on Chrome 10.0.648.127 beta for Windows: > (every-of #t) returns #f instead of #t. Same here on Safari 5.0.4 ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lis

Re: [Chicken-users] No... but it is... interesting...

2011-03-10 Thread John Cowan
Felix scripsit: > If your browser supports tags, you can try: Cool! > The test-suite can be run at: I get one failure running on Chrome 10.0.648.127 beta for Windows: (every-of #t) returns #f instead of #t. > Note that running this this takes a while and might trigger a > browser warning.

[Chicken-users] Re: No... but it is... interesting...

2011-03-10 Thread Ivan Shmakov
> Felix writes: > Hello! > This announces the availability of "SPOCK", a Scheme->JavaScript > compiler and runtime system. It can statically compile > really-nearly-mostly R5RS-Scheme to JS or can be used to dynamically > generate code from s-expressions (say, in a web-server or CGI >

[Chicken-users] Re: foreign-lambda* question

2011-03-10 Thread John J Foerch
Thomas Chust writes: > > Hello John, > > looking at your code I have two immediate questions: Why do you > recompute the length of a list twice, which is a linear operation, > when you could simply store the length or access the length of the > vector you create in constant time? > Just sloppines

[Chicken-users] Re: foreign-lambda* question

2011-03-10 Thread John J Foerch
Jim Ursetto writes: > John, > Presuming you no longer need the contents of "values" after the call to > window-property-set, you can then use "free" from unit lolevel to free the > memory. Is that the case? > Aha, thank you. Yes. -- John Foerch _

[Chicken-users] No... but it is... interesting...

2011-03-10 Thread Felix
Hello! This announces the availability of "SPOCK", a Scheme->JavaScript compiler and runtime system. It can statically compile really-nearly-mostly R5RS-Scheme to JS or can be used to dynamically generate code from s-expressions (say, in a web-server or CGI application). Tail-calls and first-clas

Re: [Chicken-users] raw packet interface

2011-03-10 Thread Christiano F. Haesbaert
On 10 March 2011 05:19, Nicolas Pelletier wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 13:52, Stephen Eilert wrote: >> >> Do you think that bindings for libpcap would be enough for your purposes? > > I'll need filtering capabilities like those of libpcap (or BPF). > However, libpcap does not seem

Re: [Chicken-users] foreign-lambda* question

2011-03-10 Thread Thomas Chust
2011/3/10 John J Foerch : > [...] > I have a procedure that takes a window and a list of numbers and > sets a property on the window which is an array of those > numbers.  The array must be an array of unsigned long, and > foreign-lambda* seems to be the tool for the job to make this > object.  In

Re: [Chicken-users] raw packet interface

2011-03-10 Thread Nicolas Pelletier
Hello, On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 13:52, Stephen Eilert wrote: > > Do you think that bindings for libpcap would be enough for your purposes? I'll need filtering capabilities like those of libpcap (or BPF). However, libpcap does not seem (to my knowledge) to be able to send packets. Since I intend t