On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 07:55 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
On 11 April 2013 13:37, Ian Price ianpric...@googlemail.com wrote:
So, what do you think?
This is the sort of thing that belongs in a .guile rather than in
guile IMO.
Right, and since you can already do this with more control
On Apr 12, 2013, at 01:53, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
On 11 April 2013 07:07, Daniel Llorens daniel.llor...@bluewin.ch wrote:
After the array-map patches, I've gone through the vector/array
implementation and there's some stuff I'd like to fix. In stable-2.0 today:
(define a
On 12 April 2013 14:29, Nala Ginrut nalagin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 07:55 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
On 11 April 2013 13:37, Ian Price ianpric...@googlemail.com wrote:
So, what do you think?
This is the sort of thing that belongs in a .guile rather than in
guile
Ian Price ianpric...@googlemail.com skribis:
So, what do you think?
This is the sort of thing that belongs in a .guile rather than in
guile IMO.
+1.
(Besides, note that copyright for code contributed to Guile should be
held by the FSF.)
Ludo’.
On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 15:50 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
On 12 April 2013 14:29, Nala Ginrut nalagin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 07:55 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
On 11 April 2013 13:37, Ian Price ianpric...@googlemail.com wrote:
So, what do you think?
This is the
On 12 April 2013 15:23, Daniel Llorens daniel.llor...@bluewin.ch wrote:
Right. I want [0]
(vector-ref #@1(1 2 3 4) 1) = 2
to fail with a type error, which is consistent with r5rs.
Ah. I should have read more the later part of your mail.
However my proposal is also to produce the same
On 12 April 2013 18:15, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
From your original mail:
a. the array implementation can rely on all [vector] types
having known base=0 and inc=1.
Is that not already the case?
Ah right, not when ‘vector?’ answers #t to compatible arrays.
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:15:05 +0800
From: Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com
Too restrictive IMO, you may as
well just not permit any array passed to vector
interfaces.
Being restrictive would be my preference, yes.
[Besides, you can already get at the underlying vector
using
On 12 April 2013 20:37, Daniel Llorens daniel.llor...@bluewin.ch wrote:
[Tail first:]
After [0], I'm open on allowing general, 0-indexed, rank-1
arrays to the vector- functions, but I'll send the patches
anyway that forbid this. The tests all pass (which maybe shows
how poor the coverage
Ian Price ianpric...@googlemail.com writes:
I don't know much about Lua, but I think I could do the following.
1. Fix the lua-lexer failure.
2. Disable or fix[1] the variable-arguments functionality.
3. Rebase or merge with modern stable or master
4. Fix the errors that arise as a result of
Nala Ginrut nalagin...@gmail.com writes:
Ah~very nice~
So many cool things should be documented...
Yeah, I've been meaning to do this. I'll try and get a patch for later
today/tomorrow.
--
Ian Price -- shift-reset.com
Programming is like pinball. The reward for doing it well is
the
Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com writes:
On 12 April 2013 15:23, Daniel Llorens daniel.llor...@bluewin.ch wrote:
However my proposal is also to produce the same type error when
the argument is a rank-1 array with base!=0 or inc!=1. These
may be indexed from 0, but can only be produced by
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 22:06:38 +0800
From: Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com
Great. This strikes a nice balance, with simple enough semantics
and flexability to massage array data for vector-coded modules.
I doubt _anyone_ will miss using non-0-indexed arrays that way.
I personally think
Yeah, I've been meaning to do this. I'll try and get a patch for later
today/tomorrow.
Great.
Could you also add more examples to the .guile-related section? What do
you have in .guile?
pgpqdVbVpZ80M.pgp
Description: PGP signature
This is the sort of thing that belongs in a .guile rather than in
guile IMO.
+1.
OK. I hope that it'll be documented.
pgpNs_2RyiFha.pgp
Description: PGP signature
15 matches
Mail list logo
