Doug Evans writes:
> What I want is all the functionality of scm_c_catch and all the
> functionality of scm_c_with_continuation_barrier ... which is exactly
> what scm_i_with_continuation_barrier is.
>
> So ... any chance in exporting scm_i_with_continuation_barrier?
> [renamed of course :-)]
> H
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis:
> I’ve polished my potluck dish for inclusion into Guile proper.
>
> So the first patch below adds (system base type), which does type tag
> decoding in a backend-independent manner. The guts of it is
> ‘scm->object’, which takes an SCM bit pattern and retu
Arne Babenhauserheide writes:
> What do you think?
I don't have a strong opinion at all, since this feels like a bikesheddy
issue, but I think the current behavior is more preferable. A lambda
form cannot have an empty body, and having a docstring shouldn't change
that, so I would expect (lambd
2014-02-20 17:59 GMT+01:00 Arne Babenhauserheide :
> Hi,
>
> I recently experimented with docstrings, and I stumbled over not being
> able to define a function which only has a docstring as body:
>
>
> (define (foo)
> "bar")
>
> (procedure-documentation foo)
> => #f
>
> Adding a f
On 2014-02-20 16:59, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
Hi,
I recently experimented with docstrings, and I stumbled over not being
able to define a function which only has a docstring as body:
(define (foo)
"bar")
(procedure-documentation foo)
⇒ #f
Adding a form makes the string
Hi,
I recently experimented with docstrings, and I stumbled over not being
able to define a function which only has a docstring as body:
(define (foo)
"bar")
(procedure-documentation foo)
⇒ #f
Adding a form makes the string act as docstring:
(define (foo)
"ba
