Re: Licensing of Guile code loaded by libguile.so

Hi Philip, On Sat, Jun 15 2024, Philip McGrath wrote: > Therefore, "the entire work, as a whole," would need to be under the > GPL. Thank you. That's also the conclusion I came to from several different angles. For now, the work remains licensed under the GPL. My work is Guile-PAM. [1] It's

RE: exception from inside false-if-exception?

> Also, I don’t see a fundamental change in meaning >>just look at my test.scm: >>without the explicit (let/ec return ...) wrapper, and the explicit use of >>(return ...) in the handlers, the two invocations lead to different flow of >>control. >>It's icing on the cake that if the underlying

RE: exception from inside false-if-exception?

> Also, I don’t see a fundamental change in meaning just look at my test.scm: without the explicit (let/ec return ...) wrapper, and the explicit use of (return ...) in the handlers, the two invocations lead to different flow of control. it's icing on the cake that if the underlying ERROR

RE: exception from inside false-if-exception?

I don’t think we are going to agree on much here, but some new points of agreement pop up occassionally. Continuing this … >> What is lousy and expectation-violating about a keyword argument >> doing what it name describes? >well, this should have been discussed at the R6RS committee, but...

Re: [PATCH] Add srfi-235: Combinators.

Janneke Nieuwenhuizen writes: I already changed the passive "Returns" to "Return"... > +Invokes @emph{thunks} in order, and returns what the last thunk returns, > +or an unspecified value if there are no thunks. but missed these... s/Invokes/Invoke/g s/returns/return/g changed

[PATCH] Add peek-error, pke.

Debuging using `pk' is popular in Guile, but not really usable if your program is as (pseudo-)filter, i.e., writing its output to stdout. * module/ice-9/boot-9.scm (peek-error, pke): New procedures. --- module/ice-9/boot-9.scm | 10 ++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) diff --git

Re: Define works different when Compile and Eval

> (define (test-eval teval) > (teval '(define a 1)) if you want this^ to be actually defined while compilation is happening (i.e. in the compilation stage; see staged computing), then you need to use an (eval-when (expand) ...) wrapper around it.

[PATCH] Add srfi-235: Combinators.

Imported reference implementation, test, and documentation from . * module/srfi/srfi-235.scm: New file. * am/bootstrap.am (SOURCES): Register it. * test-suite/tests/srfi-235.test: New file. * test-suite/Makefile.am (SCM_TESTS): Register it. *

Define works different when Compile and Eval

Here is a snippet of code, which I expect to produce the same result with both eval and compile, but the results are different. When compile is used (define a a) sets a to #. Is it a bug? --8<---cut here---start->8--- (define-module (2024-06-18-define-bug))