Peter Bex scripsit:
> Note the nonl, which the manual states is equivalent to ".", but of
> course nonl means "no newline".
Dot in regular expressions has *always* meant "match any character but a
newline". It doesn't come up that much in Unix commands, which typically
process their input line b
Hi, Matt--
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Matt Welland
wrote:
> I'm not sure how to narrow this problem down but I'd like to start with a
> fresh build of chicken / IUP. However that process never seems to go well
> for me.
>
What part doesn't go well? Is it the IUP egg, or the IUP library i
"Jörg F. Wittenberger" scripsit:
> John, does a chicken implementation already exist?
SRFI 125 is only implemented for Larceny, but the code's pretty portable.
I'm in the process of replacing SRFI 114 with the simpler SRFI 128, so
hold off on that for a bit.
--
John Cowan http://www.cc
Am 29.10.2015 um 20:57 schrieb John Cowan:
> "Jörg F. Wittenberger" scripsit:
>
>> However when it comes to `fold` I'm not sure if it is better to follow
>> the srfi-1 argument order (combiner-initial-set) or the srfi-69 style
>> order (set-combiner-initial).
>
> SRFI-1 rules, SRFI-69 (in this re
Am 29.10.2015 um 20:49 schrieb Dan Leslie:
> Whatever works with the doto macro?
Looks like `doto` expects it's first `var` argument to be mutable and
returns the same reference. This would argue in favor of the srfi-69
ordering. (Which is available via the -table API atop.)
However those "bind
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 09:12:44PM -0700, Matt Welland wrote:
> (string-match "^([^\n]*)(\n.*|).*$" "This\nis \n")
> => #f
>
> Using Ruby as comparison:
>
> irb(main):001:0> "This\nis \n".match(/^([^\n]*)(\n.*|)$/)
> => #
Interesting! This seems to be a problem in the way string->sre works:
#;
