Hi Ludovic,
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> I've been avoiding adding a public API for this, because I feel that the
>> current 'read-options' API is poorly-designed and I'd rather take the
>> opportunity to come up with a clean design.
>
> What about just mapping the existing ‘read-opti
nalaginrut writes:
> And don't forget SRFI-105 ;-D
SRFI-105 is already in.
Mark
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> I think time has come for 2.0.7. I suggest scheduling it for Week 48,
> WDYT?
Sounds good!
Here are the items from my TODO list that I hope to do for 2.0.7:
(and if anyone else wants to do any of these, that would be great!)
* Move docs for SRFI-9 record
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> My current inclination would be to fully reject it, then.
Okay.
> Currently there are two stat(2) for each entry in $GUILE_LOAD_PATH:
[...]
> That would double that.
>
> This is likely to become noticeable with large $GUILE_LOAD_PATH values
> and/or numero
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> * Reject the dominant R6RS library naming convention, and force users
>> and guildhall repository maintainers to rename the files to .scm and
>> move *.guile.sls to *.scm.
Based on Mark's prompting, I have already done this for a number of
existing gu
nalaginrut writes:
> hey guys! Should we consider add our specified name, like: .gl or
> just .guile?
Please don't
--
Ian Price -- shift-reset.com
"Programming is like pinball. The reward for doing it well is
the opportunity to do it again" - from "The Wizardy Compiled"
hey guys! Should we consider add our specified name, like: .gl or
just .guile?
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 22:15 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Mark H Weaver skribis:
>
> > I don't think the command-line switch is a good solution. The problem
> > is that even if the main program is not wri
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 19:11 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I think time has come for 2.0.7. I suggest scheduling it for Week 48,
> WDYT?
>
> By then, we should essentially squash as many bugs as possible.
>
> New features we may want to include:
>
> - functional setters, for SRFI
On 11/05/12 10:11, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I think time has come for 2.0.7. I suggest scheduling it for Week 48,
> WDYT?
I think it would be Really Nice if it were not fiddling LD_LIBRARY_PATH
by the next release.
> By then, we should essentially squash as many bugs as possible.
th
On 5 Nov 2012, at 22:02, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi Hans,
Hi Ludo,
> Hans Aberg skribis:
>
>> On 5 Nov 2012, at 19:11, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>
>>> I think time has come for 2.0.7. I suggest scheduling it for Week 48,
>>> WDYT?
>>
>> FYI, this is the last week of November - a lot of count
Hi!
Mark H Weaver skribis:
> I don't think the command-line switch is a good solution. The problem
> is that even if the main program is not written in R6RS, and even if the
> main program does not use any R6RS libraries directly, this option might
> still be needed.
Right, good point.
> I se
Hi Hans,
Hans Aberg skribis:
> On 5 Nov 2012, at 19:11, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>
>> I think time has come for 2.0.7. I suggest scheduling it for Week 48,
>> WDYT?
>
> FYI, this is the last week of November - a lot of countries do not use this
> week numbering system.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.o
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis:
> - assertion failure hit when running srfi-18.test in a loop
This one turned out to be easy (it could be reproduced by running the
"sleeping threads notified of abandonment" in a loop), and is fixed by
02a362a. Cool! :-)
Ludo’.
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Andreas Rottmann skribis:
>
>> Not a hindrance, just an annoyance, IMHO. Maybe a reasonable compromise
>> would be to add an --r6rs switch, to add these extensions, as well as
>> turn on any R6RS-compatiblity reader options, so the script being
>> executed
On 5 Nov 2012, at 19:11, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> I think time has come for 2.0.7. I suggest scheduling it for Week 48,
> WDYT?
FYI, this is the last week of November - a lot of countries do not use this
week numbering system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-day_week#Week_numbering
Hello!
I think time has come for 2.0.7. I suggest scheduling it for Week 48,
WDYT?
By then, we should essentially squash as many bugs as possible.
New features we may want to include:
- functional setters, for SRFI-9
- ‘--r6rs’ and related R6RS things
- Chris’s SRFI-41
Noteworthy bugs t
Hi,
Sorry for the delay.
Aleix Conchillo Flaqué skribis:
> - Should SCM_VALIDATE_(FLOAT|DOUBLE)_COPY use scm_to_double?
Yes. I’ve just fixed it, thanks!
> - Are SCM_VALIDATE_XXX_COPY the way to go? Because it is ignoring the
> pos argument. It seems, simply calling scm_to_int, etc. would be
Hello!
Mark H Weaver skribis:
> The problem with the approach above is that it sets the read options
> globally, which is obviously a bad idea in a multithreaded program.
>
> Until very recently there was no other practical option, but now 'read'
> starts by building a private struct 'scm_t_read
Hi,
Andreas Rottmann skribis:
> Not a hindrance, just an annoyance, IMHO. Maybe a reasonable compromise
> would be to add an --r6rs switch, to add these extensions, as well as
> turn on any R6RS-compatiblity reader options, so the script being
> executed can use the R6RS syntax we already suppo
19 matches
Mail list logo
