On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 09:35:09PM -0400, Ian Grant wrote:
Well, if I do succeed in distributing malware, it will be a good
demonstration of what I have been arguing for months now, which is
that your core infrastructure is _very,_ _very_ flaky, and that far
from being the most important
Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes:
Hi,
New version adds
* test-suite/tests/srfi-64.test (guile-test-runner): Update callers.
Thanks to Mark Weaver, who also suggested this function might better be
moved to test-suite/lib.scm.
Greetings,
Jan
PS: please have a look at my GUD and Guile-Gnome
Hi,
I found that when code under test throws an exception, it is hidden from
the user. The test suite niftily uses exceptions for message passing, I
wonder if this is wise (in-band signaling?).
Anyway, if an unexpected exception occurs I find it helpful to see the
backtrace. See attached
Ludovic Courtès writes:
Hi,
I don’t think this is needed. Lexers are expected to use
‘make-lexical-token’ and ‘make-source-location’ from (system base lalr)
to preserve source location information.
I hope you're right...and that's what I tried, but I didn't get it
working. Possibly I
On 3 October 2014 22:56, Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer
taylanbayi...@gmail.com wrote:
William ML Leslie william.leslie@gmail.com writes:
Oh, interesting point. Maybe we should define PDF as an abstract
semantics that we can convert into a wide range of equivalent document
layout
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Nala Ginrut nalagin...@gmail.com wrote:
The real problem here, is the provided PDF can't be opened normally. That's
bad, for your idea. It's your mistake, not others.
Then tell me the name, the sha512sum of the file, the URL from which
you downloaded it and the
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Ian Grant ian.a.n.gr...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Nala Ginrut nalagin...@gmail.com wrote:
The real problem here, is the provided PDF can't be opened normally.
That's
bad, for your idea. It's your mistake, not others.
Then tell
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 2:58 AM, Mike Gerwitz mikegerw...@gnu.org wrote:
On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 09:35:09PM -0400, Ian Grant wrote:
Well, if I do succeed in distributing malware, it will be a good
demonstration of what I have been arguing for months now, which is
that your core infrastructure
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Nala Ginrut nalagin...@gmail.com wrote:
Alright, I changed a system and try it again with evince successfully.
Anyway, I did't find any maths or special symbols in it, so it could be
published on your blog as plain text. But you may insist on the opinion of
Taylan wrote:
In your PDF analogy, the solution is to write a spurious
amount of PDF implementations. Or for C, to implement
a spurious amount of C compilers. That is impractical
because C is complex.
It's not as complex as you might think. In the space of a couple of
months, I wrote what I
Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes:
Changes in v3:
* fix source-line/user-source-line confusion in srfi-64
* better conforming commit message
From 2776b305b1b81ccebbb94ae4ef83ae83996a5253 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen jann...@gnu.org
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 18:37:44 +0200
Subject:
On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 12:11:00PM -0400, Ian Grant wrote:
As has been stated---your concerns are substantiated and understood,
I wasn't aware that my concerns _have_ been substantiated. How? I am
not sure they have been understood, either.
They were substantiated long ago by the very
12 matches
Mail list logo
