[Chicken-users] sandbox usable?

Ahoy! I need to execute some untrusted code. A sandbox would be a good way to do this. Conveniently, Chicken has just such an egg - the sandbox egg. Unfortunately, sandbox was last touched in 2009 (AFAICT), and the similar but slightly more recently updated environments egg (also by Felix) is

Re: [Chicken-users] [Chicken-hackers] happy christmas!

Merry Christmas to you, too, Felix! '(here is (a nice) christmas (tree) (well more (of a) christmas (list) if I am (being honest))) On Sat, Dec 24, 2016, 09:27 Arthur Maciel wrote: > Merry Christmas, folks! > > Em 24 de dez de 2016 11:00, "Hugo Arregui"

[Chicken-users] Wrapping C++?

What's actually involved in wrapping a C++ class? The docs say I have to provide a class that contains the C++ instance pointer, but it doesn't say what to do with the instance pointer once it's in the scheme object, and how to wrap access to C++ functions and values.

Re: [Chicken-users] Compiling multiple modules into a single executable

.de> wrote: > On 2016-10-16 23:13, Josh Barrett wrote: > > [...] > > Can you generate a .import without compiling your module? > > [...] > > Hello Josh, > > as far as I know, the .import.scm files are always generated as a side > effect of compiling a so

Re: [Chicken-users] Compiling multiple modules into a single executable

Oh. Thanks. Can you generate a .import without compiling your module? On Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 17:08 Thomas Chust <ch...@web.de> wrote: > On 2016-10-16 22:52, Josh Barrett wrote: > > [...] > > $ csc -c foo.scm bar.scm > > > > Syntax error (import): ca

Re: [Chicken-users] Compiling multiple modules into a single executable

..@pestilenz.org> wrote: > * Josh Barrett <jbarrett...@gmail.com> [161016 21:57]: > > I really like modules. I tend to use several per project, if not one per > > file. However, when it comes time to compile an executable, I'd rather > not > > have 50 random .so files c

[Chicken-users] Compiling multiple modules into a single executable

I really like modules. I tend to use several per project, if not one per file. However, when it comes time to compile an executable, I'd rather not have 50 random .so files cluttering up the place. I've tried using compilation units (which seems to be the endorsed method of compiling multiple

Re: [Chicken-users] Upcomming Conference

Thanks a lot. Some of the talks on the schedule already look fascinating. On Tue, Sep 6, 2016, 16:37 Christian Kellermann <ck...@pestilenz.org> wrote: > * Josh Barrett <jbarrett...@gmail.com> [160906 22:34]: > > For those of us unable to attend, will these talks be recorde

Re: [Chicken-users] Upcomming Conference

For those of us unable to attend, will these talks be recorded in any way? Sincerely, Josh On Fri, Sep 2, 2016, 11:16 Christian Kellermann wrote: > Hi all! > > I have added a first agenda proposal for our meeting. To make planning > easier, I would like you to incidate

[Chicken-users] Cyclone

http://justinethier.github.io/cyclone/ It's another scheme, with Cheney-on-the-mta, and native threads. While not directly portable, we may want to see if we can implement a similar native thread strategy for Chicken. Implementing threading on Chicken will obviously be hard (or we would have

[Chicken-users] Threads, and async

Firstly, are chicken's SRFI-18 "green threads" pre-emptive, or do you have to explicitly yield in order for the next scheduled thread to run? Secondly, does Chicken have any libraries for libev/uv event-based programming? Thirdly, are there chicken bindings for select/poll? No, I don't intend

Re: [Chicken-users] Continuations

wasn't what you meant, than what did you mean? On Sat, Jul 16, 2016, 21:40 John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote: > Josh Barrett scripsit: > > > A continuation is a capture of your location in a program, and its > pending > > operations to return a result.

[Chicken-users] Continuations

Okay. Let's see if I've got this straight. A continuation is a capture of your location in a program, and its pending operations to return a result. In other languages, this is often represented by the stack. When a continuation is captured, the current state of the stack is captured and can be

Re: [Chicken-users] nested loop over lists

You can also use recursion: (let l1 ((i '(1 2 3))) (let l2 ((j '(4 5 6))) (let l3 ((k '(7 8 9))) (print (+ (car i) (car j) (car k))) (unless (null? k) (l3 (cdr k (unless (null? j) (l2 (cdr j (unless (null? i) (l1 (cdr i))) This is generally

Re: [Chicken-users] [ANN] CHICKEN 4.11.0 has been released

>On the tooling front we've also added two new features: a statistical >profiler for analysing performance, and a graphical debugger called >"feathers", which allows you to inspect your Scheme programs over the >network. These have both been documented in the manual. The debugger >has its own

Re: [Chicken-users] January 2016 Lisp Game Jam

Has anybody tried guile's Sly? If so, how does it stack up to chicken's... Variety of libraries? On Mon, Dec 21, 2015, 19:40 John Croisant wrote: > Attention CHICKEN game programmers, > > There is a Lisp Game Jam coming up on January 1. You have 7 days to > create a small

Re: [Chicken-users] How do you compile multiple modules into a single executable?

Is there any way to use (cond-expand) to decide whether to (use) or (import) depending on if the program's compiled or not? On Sat, Dec 19, 2015, 20:57 Evan Hanson wrote: > Hi Josh, > > I think the following is what you're after. > > $ cat foo.scm > (module foo *

[Chicken-users] How do you compile multiple modules into a single executable?

So I have file foo.scm, which contains module foo, and file bar.scm which calls (use foo). My question is, how do I compile these both down to a single executable, as opposed to having executable bar, which uses foo.so? I've tried several approaches but I always get errors at compilation, as both

Re: [Chicken-users] Continuations, control flow, and F-operator

Thanks John, that helped a lot. On Sun, Dec 13, 2015, 23:56 John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote: > Josh Barrett scripsit: > > > I mean, I know call/cc is fast in chicken, but is it that fast, or is > > F-operator using some chicken specific implementation tha

[Chicken-users] Continuations, control flow, and F-operator

... So, how does F-operator even exist? It's an egg that implements delimited continuations, that much I know, but HOW? IIRC, it's only possible to implement delimited continuations in pure scheme if all control flow is implemented in continuations. So is that what chicken does? I mean, I know