[ANN] CHICKEN 5.4.0 has been released

Dear CHICKEN users, We are pleased to announce the immediate availability of CHICKEN 5.4.0 at the following URL: https://code.call-cc.org/releases/5.4.0/chicken-5.4.0.tar.gz This tarball has the following SHA256 checksum: 3c5d4aa61c1167bf6d9bf9eaf891da7630ba9f5f3c15bf09515a7039bfcdec5f This is m

Re: Updated Allegro egg for Chicken 5, and other notes

On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 06:38:31PM +, Dan Leslie wrote: > As an side, it appears that the Apropos egg cannot be installed on Windows, > either. In fact, attempting to install it irrecoverably breaks > chicken-install, requiring a complete fresh reinstall of Chicken to get it > working again.

[ANN] CHICKEN 5.4.0 release candidate 2 available

Hello all, The second release candidate for CHICKEN 5.4.0 is now available for download: https://code.call-cc.org/dev-snapshots/2024/06/25/chicken-5.4.0rc2.tar.gz The sha256sum of that tarball is: 4733f7eaffbb9917605314fbc820ae693cb05a4d6829a229b0340ecd81479d72 The list of changes since 5.

Re: [Chicken-announce] [ANN] CHICKEN 5.4.0 release candidate available

On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 10:08:42AM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: > CHICKEN 5.4.0rc1 is now available at this location: > https://code.call-cc.org/dev-snapshots/2024/05/31/chicken-5.4.0rc1.tar.gz > > The SHA256 sum of that tarball is > 61d59cb4f3ca226995d7dca3510c7a646c2cf1e28ebc771bf

[ANN] CHICKEN 5.4.0 release candidate available

Hello everyone, We are happy to announce the first release candidate of the upcoming CHICKEN 5.4.0. CHICKEN 5.4.0rc1 is now available at this location: https://code.call-cc.org/dev-snapshots/2024/05/31/chicken-5.4.0rc1.tar.gz The SHA256 sum of that tarball is 61d59cb4f3ca226995d7dca3510c7a646c2c

Re: Improve "busy" numeric code's performance [was: Re: Big Integers]

On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 02:42:38PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: > Attached are two patches, one which has this bigger improvement, and > another which is a minor improvement which translates to shaving about > a second of runtime off your program (at least on my machine). The minor patch was

Improve "busy" numeric code's performance [was: Re: Big Integers]

ons        (display "normal > termination \n")        #f      ) ; if done    ) ; if and   ) ; end let*) > (let ( [n (- (expt 2 257) 1)] [u 2] [v 11] [c 7] [iter 1] [prod 1] )    > (display "factor n = ") (display n) (newline)    (time (rho n u v c iter > prod)))

Re: Big Integers

(sending again, forgot to CC the users list) On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 03:23:54PM +, T.D. Telford wrote: > With the csc compiler and the -f or -fixnum-arithmetic option (Assume all > numbers are fixnums) my benchmarks appear to be quite fast compared to racket > of chez scheme.  When running a

Re: "cannot coerce inexact literal to fixnum"

On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 04:07:12PM +0200, Al wrote: > On 2024-02-10 15:38, Peter Bex wrote: > > > That's because you're using fixnum mode. As I explained, using literals > > that might be too large for fixnums break the fixnum mode's premise that > > ever

Re: "cannot coerce inexact literal to fixnum"

On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 02:32:16PM +0200, Al wrote: > That would be fine but where does that happen? csc actually barfs on my > Scheme code (as per the subject line), instead of emitting C code to > encode/decode into a string at runtime, as you mention. That's because you're using fixnum mode. A

Re: (declare (pure ...))

On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 12:24:36PM +, Pietro Cerutti wrote: > This is not how I reason about referential transparency. It is a property of > functions applied to values, not variables. > The fact that you can define x to different values or even rebind it in the > scope of a let binding doesn

Re: (declare (pure ...))

On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 11:12:04AM +, siiky via wrote: > Hi Al, > > > On a practical level, I would be sad if vector-ref, for example, was > > "impure", and thus compiling a vector-ref invalidated all previously- > > checked globals for the current scope. Likewise, I would prefer to > > declar

Re: "cannot coerce inexact literal to fixnum"

On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 08:12:38AM +0200, Al wrote: > On 2024-02-10 02:42, Al wrote: > > > ... if I enable fixnum, csc chokes on both the third and fourth > > display's with: "Error: cannot coerce inexact literal `2147483647' to > > fixnum". It compiles and runs fine if those lines are commented o

Re: on the distribution of import.so files

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 02:37:03AM +0100, Erica Z wrote: > hello! i am packaging chicken for a linux distribution, and i have a > question about the libraries that end in import.so; what is their exact > role? under which circumstances are they loaded? would they need to be > available to a distrib

Re: Deprecated current-milliseconds

On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 12:48:34PM +0100, Vasilij Schneidermann wrote: > Hello, > > the openssl egg does no longer produce the warning in version 2.2.5 by either > importing the new or old identifier, depending on whichever is available. > Feel free to use that approach in the other egg and cons

Re: [PATCH] Re: Eggs not installing on msys-mingw32

On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 05:45:28PM -0400, Matt Welland wrote: > Well, maybe there is a silver lining here, I can currently reliably > reproduce the problem! That's excellent! Do you have to do any special steps, or does it simply always happen? > One hypothesis I'm looking at is replacing calls

Re: Startup failure in Windows XP

On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 09:12:08AM -0700, igors wrote: > Hello! > chicken 5.x under Windows XP when running, for example csi.exe, error: > function GetFinalPathNameByHandle not found, because it appeared in Windows > Vista. Is it possible to replace this function, for example with > NtQueryInfor

Re: Question about how to check a symbol is bound

On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 09:32:36PM +0200, felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote: > But I still think that keeping an expansion/compile-time registry and > accessing it using procedure macros (via "strip-syntax"ed identifiers > to drop all renaming artifacts) is a possible solution. I agree, that's how

Re: Question about how to check a symbol is bound

On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 04:01:40PM +0800, Pan Xie wrote: > For example, if I want to do things shown in following codes, it is useful to > get the > interned symbols from their names and also get their bound procedures: ...[code elided]... > I think it is a very common idiom in languages from Li

Re: Question about how to check a symbol is bound

On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 03:32:38PM +0800, Pan wrote: > Ah, that make sense. It seems I can just use the '##sys#slot' procedure to > accomplish all that tasks. Please don't use ##sys#slot unless you know what you're doing - the procedure is unsafe and will cause segmentation faults when used on non

Re: Different versions of syntax-rules

On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 11:58:50PM +0200, felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote: > > Is there a desire to stick to r5rs features only in the chicken-core > > expander, or is the intention to fold the R7RS / SRFI 46 features back > > into the chicken-core expander at some point in the future? > > I hav

Re: I'm missing something obvious about (chicken conditions)

On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 04:40:15PM -0500, T. Kurt Bond wrote: > I've got two programs, edited down from other slightly larger programs > for clarity. They use condition-case to handle exceptions. I'm > interested in handling a (mine) condition and a (mine too) > differently. One of the program *

Re: mingw32-make: *** [chicken-defaults.h] Error 1

On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 01:50:24PM +0800, Patrickpwq wrote: > and here is my command: > ``` > C:\Program Files (x86)\chicken-5.3.0>mingw32-make PLATFORM=mingw > PREFIX="C:\Program Files (x86)\chicken-5.3.0" > ``` > I wonder where is the problem,  I'm a freshman studying CS in China, > appreciate

Re: New egg: CHICKEN Transducers

On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 06:48:56PM -0700, Jeremy Steward wrote: > I've been somewhat bothered by the fragmentation in a certain aspect of > Scheme / Lisp: notably that there isn't really something akin to Rust's > Iterator trait in Scheme, and as a result working across various collections > and da

Re: define-er-syntax* new egg

On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 08:50:04AM +0200, Sandra Snan wrote: > Can any one add https://idiomdrottning.org/define-er-syntax.release-info to > egg-locations, please? > I know that the last three times I asked, I forgot to actually put any > releases in there. > I found them in my fridge next to all

Re: http-client egg and authentication

On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 12:15:10AM +0200, Christian Himpe wrote: > Dear All, > > so I found this recent StackOverflow issue: > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/72904388/how-do-i-use-http-basic-auth-with-http-client > based on which I tried to use `make-uri` and pass the URI record (including

Re: New Egg: TOML wrapper

On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 09:53:11PM +0200, Daniel Ziltener wrote: > Hmm, right... I have never sent in an egg with a submodule. Seems like Gitea > cannot pack submodules so far. So what I did for now is to add a "generated > source" to the egg file that triggers a "git clone" of a hardcoded commit o

Re: Bare-Metal Suitability

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 03:20:36PM -0600, Paul Whittington wrote: > I'm a total Chicken noob. Is Chicken suitable for use in bare-metal > applications? Hello Paul, I don't think it's very suitable - CHICKEN relies on libc and most of POSIX syscalls being present. Maybe an experienced CHICKEN ha

Re: Chicken 5 on Cygwin

On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 01:07:21PM -0500, Claude Marinier wrote: > Allô, > > I see that Cygwin includes Chicken 4. This is not a problem at home where I > can compile from sources. At work, I am working on approval for Cygwin as a > whole. It would be nice if Cygwin included Chicken 5. > > Who is

[ANN] CHICKEN 5.3.0 has been released

Dear CHICKEN users, We are pleased to announce the immediate availability of CHICKEN 5.3.0 at the following URL: https://code.call-cc.org/releases/5.3.0/chicken-5.3.0.tar.gz This tarball has the following SHA256 checksum: c3ad99d8f9e17ed810912ef981ac3b0c2e2f46fb0ecc033b5c3b6dca1bdb0d76 This is a

[ANN] CHICKEN 5.3.0 release candidate 4 available

Hello all, The fourth release candidate for CHICKEN 5.3.0 is now available for download: https://code.call-cc.org/dev-snapshots/2021/10/06/chicken-5.3.0rc4.tar.gz The sha256sum of that tarball is: ba8da800e708c423c0e6e812fa2a93b947c731e52d115988b0c0f84406040e14 The list of changes since 5.

[ANN] CHICKEN 5.3.0 release candidate 3 available

Hello all, The third release candidate for CHICKEN 5.3.0 is now available for download: https://code.call-cc.org/dev-snapshots/2021/09/20/chicken-5.3.0rc3.tar.gz The sha256sum of that tarball is: 298ad5eab42ea56c3cc3fcc7343a510e0c41fc13d3b5bdd2f4b1a636458f8f67 The list of changes since 5.2

Re: Windows vs Linux Performance, windows host 4-6x slower than linux guest vm

On Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 01:26:26PM +0100, Mark Fisher wrote: > I'm seeing quite a difference in performance between the two; windows host > is running about ~4-6x slower than a VM that's running on the same machine. hm, that's odd indeed. Perhaps it's something to do with the different C calling

Re: Installing Chicken 5.2.0 on Windows - chicken-install -update-db hanging

On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 08:00:22PM +0100, Mark Fisher wrote: > I have traced where my copy is crashing, but I don't know why. Hi Mark, Could you give 5.3.0rc2 a quick spin? In it, we've simply dropped the custom implementation of opendir and readdir. Also, since it is pre-translated to C, it do

[ANN] CHICKEN 5.3.0 release candidate 2 available

Hello all, The second release candidate for CHICKEN 5.3.0 is now available for download: https://code.call-cc.org/dev-snapshots/2021/08/31/chicken-5.3.0rc2.tar.gz The sha256sum of that tarball is: 1736f68006564c5690ce8f844f1c6052046b0bf15a6436aa2ec0d59534ae608b The list of changes since 5.

Re: Installing Chicken 5.2.0 on Windows - chicken-install -update-db hanging

On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 01:38:42PM +0100, Mark Fisher wrote: > I always ran clean/confclean between any builds to regenerate the > chicken-config file and would > watch for its generation when I built it, so I don't think it was that. > I'm pretty sure I never mixed and matched PLATFORM= values bet

Re: Installing Chicken 5.2.0 on Windows - chicken-install -update-db hanging

On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 08:34:47PM +0100, Mark Fisher wrote: > I've finally been able to get chicken installed and working, but I had to > pretend to be cygwin. > I think there's errors in the mingw-msys Makefile, or my assumptions about > it are wrong. > I would expect: > - "Makefile.mingw" to p

Re: Installing Chicken 5.2.0 on Windows - chicken-install -update-db hanging

On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 12:14:51PM +0100, Mark Fisher wrote: > The compilation works fine, but when I run the install phase, the > "chicken-install -update-db" just hangs Hello Mark, I seem te remember something like this caused by Windows Defender (the virus scanner thing in Windows). If you tu

Re: [ANN] CHICKEN 5.3.0 release candidate available

On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 08:25:21PM +0200, Sven Hartrumpf wrote: > Hi. > > The segmentation violation disappeared after cleaning my build script for > chicken. > (It contained an old "-mpreferred-stack-boundary=4" in > C_COMPILER_OPTIMIZATION_OPTIONS, > which I dropped now.) hm, I have to wonder

Re: [ANN] CHICKEN 5.3.0 release candidate available

On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 08:18:39AM +0200, Sven Hartrumpf wrote: > Hi. > > gcc 10.3.0, amd64, Ubuntu 21.04 > > I am getting a new "Error: segmentation violation", when I add (time .) > around my main function mf call: > (time (mf (cons (car (argv)) (command-line-arguments > The error happens a

Re: [ANN] CHICKEN 5.3.0 release candidate available

On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 09:44:11PM -0300, Ariela Wenner wrote: > > Hi all, I seem to be running into a weird issue with this rc when trying to > install the pigeon-hole egg (might happen with other eggs too, I tested a > bunch > and it only happened with pigeon-hole though). > > Link to log outp

[ANN] CHICKEN 5.3.0 release candidate available

Hello everyone, We are happy to announce the first release candidate of the upcoming CHICKEN 5.3.0. CHICKEN 5.3.0rc1 is now available at this location: https://code.call-cc.org/dev-snapshots/2021/08/12/chicken-5.3.0rc1.tar.gz The SHA256 sum of that tarball is 61d59cb4f3ca226995d7dca3510c7a646c2c

Re: Chicken 5 compilation, coerced inexact literal number warning. What am I missing here?

On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 10:42:39PM -0700, Matt Welland wrote: > There is a .h file in hostinfo and I didn't catch the error message. > Presumably that somehow put the compiler into fixnum mode. hm, if possible could you figure out what exactly did that? A C header file shouldn't change the compile

Re: port of xml-rpc to Chicken 5

On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 06:41:30PM -0700, Chris Brannon wrote: > Mario Domenech Goulart writes: > > > Just double-checking to avoid misunderstandings: have you contacted > > Peter Bex (maintainer of the egg for CHICKEN 4) about taking over the > > maintenance of xml-r

Re: Chicken 5 compilation, coerced inexact literal number warning. What am I missing here?

On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 09:37:32PM -0700, Matt Welland wrote: > This one I sort of understand but it does seem annoying: > > Warning: coerced inexact literal number `9e+99' to fixnum > 848859130765266355329578537025198862586562510896759102769772101980841694466750283776 I don't get

Re: Segmentation Fault with IUP on chicken 5.2.0

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 05:04:14PM -0700, Jeff Moon wrote: > Any ideas what could be causing this, or what I could do to track > it down? Hi Jeff, This sounds like there might be a bug at the toplevel of IUP, which might explain why re-importing works (it shouldn't re-evaluate the toplevel). The

Re: Adding deprecation notices to CHICKEN 4 egg docs?

On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 02:45:58PM +, Diego wrote: > > This has now been done. Cheers, Peter > > Thanks! I was thinking relatedly that C5 search results should be preferred > over C4 results, and somewhat along the same line, maybe title matches for > searches should come up first. > > I'd

Re: Adding deprecation notices to CHICKEN 4 egg docs?

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 02:24:29PM +0100, Peter Bex wrote: > I'm thinking, maybe we should do something similar for CHICKEN 4 > documentation now. [...] > Also I noticed we didn't do this for the manual itself. I think it's > a good idea to that now, too. This has no

Adding deprecation notices to CHICKEN 4 egg docs?

Hi all, I've noticed that the documentation for CHICKEN 3 eggs (and also for CHICKEN 2 eggs, where we have them) contain a "OUTDATED EGG" warning at the top, to warn people away from them. I'm thinking, maybe we should do something similar for CHICKEN 4 documentation now. CHICKEN 5 is now just o

Re: freeBSD chicken port

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 08:42:04PM -0700, Duke Normandin wrote: > > You can see the binaries in /usr/local/bin. > > chicken5 csc5 and csi5. > > You can generalize begin using most FreeBSD packages. > > I discovered all of that already! But WHY change from csc and csi > to csc5 and csi5? So next ne

Re: static builds

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 12:24:10PM +0100, Henrik Holst wrote: > Hi Community > > I am trying to build a static build using the Chicken Scheme compiler. Is > it possible to do? Hi Henrik, This is possible indeed. The -static option will only statically link CHICKEN libraries and extensions (as

Re: Bad request error when using uri-common

On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 04:16:55PM +, Brian Hughes wrote: > This first fragment throws an error: > > (form-urlencoded-separator "&") > (define foo (make-uri scheme: 'https > host: "graph.facebook.com" > path: `(,my-facebook-id) >

Re: Using a pipe in chicken 5

On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 12:01:40PM +0100, Mark Fisher wrote: > Hi Chicken Users, > > I'm a new user of chicken, and am using it to learn scheme. Hello and welcome, Mark! > I've got an issue with using pipes. > >From various sources I've created the following example, but when run > I get an exce

Re: chicken.irregex bug with positive lookbehinds

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 09:21:37AM -0400, masukomi wrote: > Thanks Peter. > Is there a good/easy way to determine where the source repo is for various > `chicken.foo` pieces of code? Not really. Almost all of the core code is our own. There are some srfis which are taken from the reference imple

Re: chicken.irregex bug with positive lookbehinds

On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 09:51:51PM -0400, masukomi wrote: > (If there's a ticketing system I've somehow missed please let me know and > I'll file this there) Hi Kay, Thanks for the report! I've filed it in the upstream repo for you: https://github.com/ashinn/irregex/issues/21 We'll also need t

Re: openssl static compile issue

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 03:07:34PM -0400, nemo1...@gmail.com wrote: > csc -static filename.scm -L -lssl -L -lcrypto > > which removes all errors and allows the code to compile. However, when ran > the compiled code generates the following http-client egg error: > > "Unable to connect over HTTPS.

Re: CHICKEN 5.2.0 has been released

On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 03:20:58PM -0600, Daniel Ortmann wrote: > make PLATFORM=linux PREFIX=/usr/local/chicken-5.2.0 install > $ cat /etc/oracle-release > Oracle Linux Server release 7.7 > $ cat /etc/redhat-release > Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 7.7 (Maipo) Hi Daniel, How is the home

CHICKEN 5.2.0 has been released

Dear CHICKEN users, We are pleased to announce the immediate availability of CHICKEN 5.2.0 at the following URL: https://code.call-cc.org/releases/5.2.0/chicken-5.2.0.tar.gz This tarball has the following SHA256 checksum: 819149c8ce7303a9b381d3fdc1d5765c5f9ac4dee6f627d1652f47966a8780fa This is m

[ANN] CHICKEN 5.2.0 release candidate 2 available

Hello all, The second release candidate for CHICKEN 5.2.0 is now available for download: https://code.call-cc.org/dev-snapshots/2020/02/16/chicken-5.2.0rc2.tar.gz The sha256sum of that tarball is: 27d324b54aeda7163dbdb8a98d973752947e6f472336592435a788b3ba7daff2 The list of changes since 5.

Re: csirc when transitioning from chicken 4 to 5

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 11:00:02AM -0700, Matt Welland wrote: > I have not been able to figure out how to make a .csirc that works for both > chicken 4 and 5. > > (import (chicken platform)) is not legal for chicken 4 but > (chicken-version) is not available in chicken 5 until you've done the > im

Re: [ANN] CHICKEN 5.2.0 release candidate available

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 08:32:05AM +0100, Sven Hartrumpf wrote: > Hi. > > The RC1 generates uncompilable C code for my Scheme code. > This code worked for all previous Chicken versions (tested > today: 5.1.0). > If I use csc -O3 (-O2 is ok), I get 19 gcc errors, e.g. > > nallch.c:1395027: error:

Re: [ANN] CHICKEN 5.2.0 release candidate available

On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 01:29:06PM +0100, Peter Bex wrote: > If you can, please let us know the following information about the > environment you tested the RC tarball on: I tested on FreeBSD again. Works with gcc: Operating system: FreeBSD 12.0 Hardware platform: x86-64 C Compiler: GCC

[ANN] CHICKEN 5.2.0 release candidate available

Hello everyone, We are happy to announce the first release candidate of the upcoming CHICKEN 5.2.0. CHICKEN 5.2.0rc1 is now available at this location: https://code.call-cc.org/dev-snapshots/2020/01/12/chicken-5.2.0rc1.tar.gz The SHA256 sum of that tarball is bf651739d7b1588b9f8b860975171987cb81

Re: Missing Eggs in Chicken 5

On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 09:02:10AM +0100, Peter Bex wrote: > I'll give porting crypt a shot this weekend. The build is rather custom > which can complicate things a bit. Hi again, I've ported the egg. It should be available as version 1.0 of crypt. Cheers, Peter signature

Re: Missing Eggs in Chicken 5

On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 11:46:31PM -0700, Jeff Moon wrote: > Update: We'll be updating the dbi repo. What do we need to do to get it > recognized by the chicken 5 eggs system? Same as for CHICKEN 4: send a message to the list with the release-info file and someone can add it to the coop. Cheers,

Re: Missing Eggs in Chicken 5

On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 04:49:34PM -0700, Jeff Moon wrote: > Matt Welland and I are porting some existing code to chicken 5. We ran > into some eggs that we are using that we would like in chicken 5: > > csv-xml > crypt Hi Jeff, I'll give porting crypt a shot this weekend. The build is rather

Re: Gosling: This year's CHICKEN event

On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 07:58:33AM +0100, Kristian Lein-Mathisen wrote: > Hi everyone! > > I've decided to try to host another Chicken even, and I'm hoping you will > attend! Please see the wiki for information: > > http://wiki.call-cc.org/event/gosling-2020 I just booked my ticket! Looking for

Re: How to solve this import in an eval problem?

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 10:43:44PM -0700, Matt Welland wrote: > I'm working toward porting my various projects to chicken 5 and for one > project I first want to convert a bunch of compilation units to modules. > This has mostly gone well but I'm stuck on exposing module code in an eval. > Without

Re: Why has the language reference been removed?

On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 07:59:09PM +0100, Kristian Lein-Mathisen wrote: > Hi Cleverson, > > Oh your're right - I didn't realize there is no > http://wiki.call-cc.org/man/4/The%20R5RS%20standard equivalent for C5. The > core team can probably clarify why this is (moving towards R7RS?). The reason

Re: [Chicken-users] Debian 9 amd64 chicken-bin 4.11.0-1 cannot import from undefined module process-context

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 11:00:17PM -0700, David Christensen wrote: > The current release of Chicken appears to be 5.1.0: > > https://code.call-cc.org/ Correct. > I do not see a Debian backport: > > https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=chicken&searchon=names§ion=all&suite=stretch-backport

Re: [Chicken-users] on generating types files for compound libraries of multiple modules

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 08:23:51AM +0200, Marco Maggi wrote: > Ciao, > > I see there is no declaration specifier for "-emit-types-file", is > there a reason?I would appreciate something similar to > "emit-import-library". I don't know, but it might be just a matter of nobo

Re: [Chicken-users] retrieving a structure's symbol name

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 07:36:04AM +0200, Marco Maggi wrote: > I am writing a library that mimics R6RS records. Every R6RS record-type > can be associated to a unique identifier (UID), which is a symbol. > Defining the same record-type in multiple modules is fine, under the > correct con

Re: [Chicken-users] retrieving a structure's symbol name

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 07:22:45PM +0200, Marco Maggi wrote: > Mh. If I understand correctly this is to avoid collisions for the > record printers, and stuff like that. It is to avoid collisions for all accessors and predicates. If I define a record type X of 2 slots in module A, and in m

Re: [Chicken-users] retrieving a structure's symbol name

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 03:49:13PM +0200, Marco Maggi wrote: > Ciao, > > I know that it is dirty, but is it possible to retrieve the symbol > name of a structure from the block object? If I create a structure > with: > >(define (make-it) > (##sys#make-structure 'spiffy)) > >

Re: [Chicken-users] Easiest way to find origin repos of Chicken eggs

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 04:54:14PM +0300, Lassi Kortela wrote: > Is there a global index (one file or web page) that links to the git/hg > origin repo of every Chicken egg? The master list used by our mirrors is https://bugs.call-cc.org/browser/release/5/egg-locations This is trawled by https://w

Re: [Chicken-users] how the second argument to ERROR is handled

On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 09:03:33AM +0200, Marco Maggi wrote: > Ciao, > > with CHICKEN 5.1.0, is the following correct: > > (import (scheme) (chicken base) (chicken condition)) > > (call/cc > (lambda (escape) > (with-exception-handler > (lambda

Re: [Chicken-users] wrong number of arguments to continuation when escaping?

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 08:13:53AM +0200, Marco Maggi wrote: > Not sure if I understand. The problem lies in the context in which the > call to DOIT is performed? Yes, exactly. > it expects any number of values in: > >(call-with-values >doit > (lambda args (apply values args))

Re: [Chicken-users] wrong number of arguments to continuation when escaping?

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 06:43:06AM +0200, Marco Maggi wrote: > I do not understand why some place expects 1 argument. The problem goes > away if I replace: > >(escape) > > with: > >(escape 1) Hi Marco, This is a known "issue", see #1390 and #1601. Improving this so that such non-expl

Re: [Chicken-users] importing a syntactic binding for level -1

On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 02:12:48PM +0200, Marco Maggi wrote: > Peter Bex wrote: > > > This won't work. "rename" is operating in the syntactic environment > > of the transformer. You can pass it as a procedure to some other module, > > but that won't c

Re: [Chicken-users] importing a syntactic binding for level -1

On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 08:26:56AM +0200, Marco Maggi wrote: > I would like to write such macro as: > > (import (scheme) > (chicken fixnum)) > (import-for-syntax (scheme) >(only (chicken syntax) > er-macro-transformer) >(on

Re: [Chicken-users] thoughts on alternate "posits" / "unums" instead of traditional floats?

On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 12:25:12PM -0500, Daniel Ortmann wrote: > I am probably the last to run across this alternate floating point > format ... but now I am curious. > > If these posits were implemented in Chicken, what sort of work would be > required? > Would they replace the traditional float

Re: [Chicken-users] Segmentation violation with chicken 5.1.0

On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 02:33:10PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: > [panic] Low-level type assertion > C_blockp((C_word)C_VAL1(C__PREV_TMPST.n1))=#t failed at chickenprob3.c:93488 > - execution terminated Here's a minimal reproducible testcase: (define (test-it) (let loop ((done #f)

Re: [Chicken-users] Segmentation violation with chicken 5.1.0

On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 05:50:30PM +0200, Sven Hartrumpf wrote: > Hello. > > I have a strange problem with legacy code that works in many > other Schemes and Chicken 5 csi, but the binary compiled with Chicken 5 > crashes. It looks like the bug happens in lookup_prob in the let*. (value (or (ph

Re: [Chicken-users] [ANN] CHICKEN 5.1.0 has been released

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 01:33:24PM +0200, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote: > Dear CHICKENers, > On Jun 18 2019, Peter Bex wrote: > > > The other important new features are the new cond-expand, c-object and > > object forms in .egg files. > > The last two forms did not mak

[Chicken-users] [ANN] CHICKEN 5.1.0 has been released

Dear CHICKEN users, We are pleased to announce the immediate availability of CHICKEN 5.1.0 at the following URL: https://code.call-cc.org/releases/5.1.0/chicken-5.1.0.tar.gz This tarball has the following SHA256 checksum: 5c1101a8d8faabfd500ad69101e0c7c8bd826c68970f89c270640470e7b84b4b The most

Re: [Chicken-users] [ANN] CHICKEN 5.1.0 release candidate available

Hi all, I tested on my old Debian/Hurd image. Operating system: Debian/Hurd 0.9 Hardware platform: x86 C Compiler: gcc 8.2.0 Installation works?: yes Tests work?: yes Installation of eggs works?: yes Cheers, Peter signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___

Re: [Chicken-users] [ANN] CHICKEN 5.1.0 release candidate available

Hi all, I've tested on Haiku. Everything worked, except for the fact that the timestamps of extracted files from tarballs are still messed up. So, I had to occasionally touch(1) a few .c files in order to avoid it trying to call "chicken" to recompile some Scheme files. This is a known issue wit

Re: [Chicken-users] [ANN] CHICKEN 5.1.0 release candidate available

Hi all, Tested on FreeBSD: Operating system: FreeBSD-11.2 Hardware platform: x86-64 C Compiler: clang 6.0.0 Installation works?: yes Tests work?: yes Installation of eggs works?: yes Operating system: FreeBSD-11.2 Hardware platform: x86-64 C Compiler: gcc 8.2.0 Installation works?: yes Tests wor

Re: [Chicken-users] [ANN] CHICKEN 5.1.0 release candidate available

On Sun, Jun 09, 2019 at 10:23:14PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > The output of "make test" was over 20,000 lines, some of which do have the > string "fail" in them. I've posted it at > if anyone wants to take a look. Hi John, That's normal. There are many te

Re: [Chicken-users] [ANN] CHICKEN 5.1.0 release candidate available

On Sun, Jun 09, 2019 at 11:15:59PM +0200, ipc...@arcor.de wrote: > Hi, > > I failed to build 5.1.0rc1. > > log: > > http://paste.call-cc.org/paste?id=049edb2b007bd9a1859362a6e99818a282aa5201 > > I know I forgot to set the LINKER flag, but setting it doesn't change > anything. Likewise, using GC

Re: [Chicken-users] [ANN] CHICKEN 5.1.0 release candidate available

On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 03:07:34PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: > Please give it a test and report your findings to the mailing list. I've done some testing on Windows 7. Operating system: Windows 7 mingw-msys under mingw32 Hardware platform: x86 C Compiler: gcc Installation works?: yes Te

Re: [Chicken-users] file-exists? is missing

On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 07:48:54PM +, Mathieu wrote: > Hi Schemers, > > Just noticed that the following : > > (import (chicken file)) > (file-exists? "anything") > > Gives the following error at runtime : > > unbound variable: chicken.file#file-exists? > > Using csc5 under Free

[Chicken-users] [ANN] CHICKEN 5.1.0 release candidate available

Hello everyone, We are happy to announce the first release candidate of the upcoming CHICKEN 5.1.0. CHICKEN 5.1.0rc1 is now available at this location: https://code.call-cc.org/dev-snapshots/2019/06/08/chicken-5.1.0rc1.tar.gz The SHA256 sum of that tarball is d520bf83e446b67508768de90768724b8a2e

Re: [Chicken-users] matchable egg: error while reporting error?

On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 09:25:51AM +0200, Marco Maggi wrote: > I understand this. But the problem looks like MATCH-SYNTAX-ERROR is > used with an invalid syntax by the "matchable" internals themselves. > What I expected is an error during the expansion of MATCH, not during > the expansi

Re: [Chicken-users] matchable egg: error while reporting error?

On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 06:21:56AM +0200, Marco Maggi wrote: > Ciao, > > with CHICKEN 5.0.0 this form using MATCH from "matchable" (updated > right now): > > (match '(#:a #:b c d) > (((? keyword? k*) ... (? symbol? s*) ...) >(pretty-print k*) >(pretty-print s*)) > (_ >(prett

Re: [Chicken-users] A Thank You to all the chicken-scheme contributors

On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 01:09:08PM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote: > I'm unlikely to ever become a scheme guru or even make a living writing it. > > I am however enjoying exploring chicken scheme and have found it to be a > clean, practical distribution with well thought out tools and suprisingly > g

Re: [Chicken-users] for those who have interest in procedure objects decoration

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 03:05:44PM +0200, Marco Maggi wrote: > Peter Bex wrote: > > This looks pretty cool! One request though: could you please add some > > blatant warnings that this stuff is not meant to be relied upon in user > > code? These are internals instead of

Re: [Chicken-users] for those who have interest in procedure objects decoration

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 10:59:17AM +0200, Marco Maggi wrote: > Ciao, > > I'm composing unofficial documentation for CHICKEN internals that are > usable from client code. As part of this I have added a section about > decorating procedure objects: > >

Re: [Chicken-users] what does "##core#check" do?

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 07:05:41AM +0200, Marco Maggi wrote: > Ciao, > > in the "record-variants" egg there is: > >(##core#check (##sys#check-structure x ',original-name)) > > I understand what: > >(##sys#check-structure x ',original-name) > > does, but what is the "##core#check

Re: [Chicken-users] Defining defmacro using define-syntax

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 07:11:40PM +0100, Martin Ward wrote: > Chicken scheme does not appear to have defmacro or define-macro > but does have define-syntax. > > Is there a way to define defmacro using define-syntax? This is of course highly discouraged (because defmacro is inherently unhygienic)

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >