Hi Kon,
If you make your code available in SVN, I would be happy to help out,
if you don't mind me messing around =). I've wanted to update this
egg for a while but lacked the impetus as the current version still
works perfectly for my purposes.
On 5/15/07, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I notice that sxml-tools doesn't implement the sxml:document procedure
(or at least, I can't find it in any of the XML-related packages).
This seems like a very useful function, because it can handle either
files or URIs.
I think the problem here is that xml:document relies on the
xlink-infrastr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> Hi all,
>
> On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 08:17:57AM +0200, felix winkelmann wrote:
>
>> sxml-tools uses the rather questionable idiom of "(apply append"
>> and "(apply string-append" at various places, which (I believe) is
>> repsonsible for the argument limit error.
>>
>
On May 15, 2007, at 10:22 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Kon,
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 10:08:24AM -0700, Kon Lovett wrote:
I am working on (more off than on) a Chicken port of the "current"
SSAX-SXML project (5.1) but do not wait up for it.
How big a job is that? Is it a matter of moving
On May 15, 2007, at 7:54 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 08:17:57AM +0200, felix winkelmann wrote:
sxml-tools uses the rather questionable idiom of "(apply append"
and "(apply string-append" at various places, which (I believe) is
repsonsible for the argument lim
Hi all,
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 08:17:57AM +0200, felix winkelmann wrote:
> sxml-tools uses the rather questionable idiom of "(apply append"
> and "(apply string-append" at various places, which (I believe) is
> repsonsible for the argument limit error.
>
> I have uploaded a new version (1.2) th
Hi!
sxml-tools uses the rather questionable idiom of "(apply append"
and "(apply string-append" at various places, which (I believe) is
repsonsible for the argument limit error.
I have uploaded a new version (1.2) that uses "concatenate" and
"string-concatenate", respectively and seems to pass t
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 04:19:03PM -0400, Graham Fawcett wrote:
> On 5/4/07, Stephen Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Is there some clever idiom that can get me around the 1000 argument
> >limit with libffi in this situation? It's kind of a showstopper,
> >since I work with large XML files pre
