On Tue 13 Dec 2011 05:39, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
Following up on my last email, I am nervously announcing a new branch,
'wip-compiler'. I hope that in a few months this branch will contain a
working compiler. For now, it contains a few new data structures and a
function
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
On Mon 12 Dec 2011 19:29, Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org writes:
You are using Guile in a very unusual way. You have constructed a
hybrid language of both Scheme and Lilypond, where each can be nested
within the other (so far so good), but -- and here's the
I'm a little worried by the amount of file descriptors left opened
after the objcode is mmaped.
I saw this note to self from objcodes.c:
/* FIXME: we leak ourselves and the file descriptor. but then again so does
dlopen(). */
So apparently the author was well aware of
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
Did you see my implementation of `local-eval' [1]? It leverages (hah!)
Guile's macro expander, but otherwise is a straightforward interpreter.
If you find it slow, there are some simple, classic optimizations that
can be made. With some work, it could
On Tue 13 Dec 2011 11:15, ri...@happyleptic.org writes:
I'm a little worried by the amount of file descriptors left opened
after the objcode is mmaped.
I saw this note to self from objcodes.c:
/* FIXME: we leak ourselves and the file descriptor. but then again so does
On Tue 13 Dec 2011 10:02, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Lilypond's input language is not David's current strategy.
I was referring to your implementation strategy. Mark describes
another implementation strategy.
It does not help because it requires _advance_ knowledge of when you are
-[ Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 01:42:35PM +0100, Andy Wingo ]
If you close the fd, isn't the memory unmapped? Isn't that a bad thing?
Maybe I was just under a big misconception here :)
That's a common misconception. The mapping of VM space to disk storage
is unrelated to the file descriptor set
Cool. As a quick reaction, I have some doubts about this project. But,
I guess a WIP branch would be a good thing to have, and it would make
the discussion more concrete.
Probably so. But if you have time, what are your doubts? I would much
rather talk about problems now than after I've
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
On Tue 13 Dec 2011 10:02, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Lilypond's input language is not David's current strategy.
I was referring to your implementation strategy.
It's not a strategy. Merely the least painful way to do things at a
given point of
Hello David,
Let us focus on solutions.
If the this realm does have a coin, it is good-will. All participants
start with ample deposits, but yours is draining fast. Please listen to
what people are saying; they are trying to help you.
Specifically:
On Tue 13 Dec 2011 14:56, David Kastrup
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
Hello David,
Let us focus on solutions.
If the this realm does have a coin, it is good-will. All participants
start with ample deposits, but yours is draining fast. Please listen to
what people are saying; they are trying to help you.
Lilypond already
On Tue 13 Dec 2011 16:27, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
It sounds like `current-bindings' is the thing you need.
It will at least be a year before any solution that does not work with
Guile 1.8 will be accepted into Lilypond.
It is possible to have similar interfaces with different
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
So I don't think that throwing out _distinguishing_ selling points of
Guile is necessarily doing you a favor. And the transparency with
which it integrates with its language environment and the fact that
one can continue to use its evaluator and debugger
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
On Tue 13 Dec 2011 16:27, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
It sounds like `current-bindings' is the thing you need.
It will at least be a year before any solution that does not work with
Guile 1.8 will be accepted into Lilypond.
It is possible to have
On Tue 13 Dec 2011 17:08, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
The current implementation wraps scraps of code into (lambda () ...) and
executes them on-demand. So the expectation is that embedded Scheme
code can have side-effects on the lexical environment like with
(let ((xxx 2))
#{
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
On Tue 13 Dec 2011 17:08, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
The current implementation wraps scraps of code into (lambda () ...) and
executes them on-demand. So the expectation is that embedded Scheme
code can have side-effects on the lexical environment
Hi Andy,
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
Am I missing something? It has been a long thread :)
In case you haven't carefully read my earlier thread with David, I
wanted to briefly explain the difficulties as I understand them, from a
Schemer's perspective. If I have misunderstood something,
On Tue 13 Dec 2011 17:54, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Am I missing something?
Performance, space, simplicity, robustness. Compiling five closures
that do nothing except accessing a single variable each is a bit
wasteful.
Sure.
Let me see if I finally understand the issue here:
You
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
On Tue 13 Dec 2011 18:28, Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org writes:
(let ((xxx 2))
#{ #(set! xxx (1+ xxx)) #})
In the general case, Lilypond needs to _execute_ the outer Scheme code
before the parser/evaluator is able to even _see_ the inner Scheme code,
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
On Tue 13 Dec 2011 17:54, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Am I missing something?
Performance, space, simplicity, robustness. Compiling five closures
that do nothing except accessing a single variable each is a bit
wasteful.
Sure.
Let me see if I
Hello,
I haven't really been contributing to this thread, so please take my
opinion with a grain of salt. But it does appear to me that we should
support capturing a lexical environment, as Mark and David describe.
So I took a look at ice-9/eval.scm to see how difficult it would be to
implement.
Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
Hello,
I haven't really been contributing to this thread, so please take my
opinion with a grain of salt. But it does appear to me that we should
support capturing a lexical environment, as Mark and David describe.
So I took a look at
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
On Wed 14 Dec 2011 00:00, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
I haven't really been contributing to this thread, so please take my
opinion with a grain of salt. But it does appear to me that we should
support capturing a lexical environment, as Mark
23 matches
Mail list logo
