Re: Hygienic rewrite of (ice-9 expect)

Hi everyone, I am curious if anyone has interest in discussing this any further. Best regards, Daniel Dinnyes On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 at 23:49, Daniel Dinnyes wrote: > Sure. Apologies for my confusion / misunderstanding. > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 at 23:47, Maxime Devos wrote: > >> >> >> Op 18-11-20

Re: Hygienic rewrite of (ice-9 expect)

Sure. Apologies for my confusion / misunderstanding. On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 at 23:47, Maxime Devos wrote: > > > Op 18-11-2023 om 12:29 schreef Daniel Dinnyes: > > Hi Maxime, > > > > I am still not sure I understand what you meant. > > You've said you weren't referring to technical issue, but also t

Re: Hygienic rewrite of (ice-9 expect)

Op 18-11-2023 om 12:29 schreef Daniel Dinnyes: Hi Maxime, I am still not sure I understand what you meant. You've said you weren't referring to technical issue, but also that you "get stuck in some vague loop of sorts and can't figure out what the maybe-issue is". Regarding what to do with

Re: Hygienic rewrite of (ice-9 expect)

Hi Maxime, I am still not sure I understand what you meant. You've said you weren't referring to technical issue, but also that you "get stuck in some vague loop of sorts and can't figure out what the maybe-issue is". Regarding what to do with the "patches", I think a git pull should work, or alt

Re: Hygienic rewrite of (ice-9 expect)

Op 27-10-2023 om 03:03 schreef Daniel Dinnyes: Regarding, that vague loopy behaviour... I am not sure if you are referring to the same thing, but I did encounter something similar with while running the tests. I don't think we are referring to the same thing -- I was referring to personally

Re: Hygienic rewrite of (ice-9 expect)

Hey, I've created a new branch/ref with some additional rewrite/changes I made. Additionally, all was rebased on current master. The main difference is that I changed the named parameters to use **ear-muffed** syntax... ...an idiom in Cl

Re: Hygienic rewrite of (ice-9 expect)

Hi, I received the latest message/version but I don't know what to do with it -- it seems an improvement wit some slight issues but no those are aren't actually issues and ... and, I get stuck in some vague loop of sorts and can't figure out what the maybe-issue is. So, err, sorry for that,

Re: Hygienic rewrite of (ice-9 expect)

Hi Maxime, Apologies for the 3 month delay in the reply, but it took some time to until I managed to finish significant changes/rewrite to address your points. The new code is on the same branch, but rebased on current savannah master, and significantly different from the earlier. Please find my

Re: Hygienic rewrite of (ice-9 expect)

Op 19-06-2023 om 01:37 schreef Daniel Dinnyes: I have to apologise for the massive hatched-job I did with that "rebase"! :P Some references to my own modules were left in, other variables mixed up, etc. I think it's in better shape now. Checked that tests run at least! It's the same feature br

Re: Hygienic rewrite of (ice-9 expect)

Will look later ... have been busy. I expect to have time after ~2 weeks. OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Hygienic rewrite of (ice-9 expect)

I have to apologise for the massive hatched-job I did with that "rebase"! :P Some references to my own modules were left in, other variables mixed up, etc. I think it's in better shape now. Checked that tests run at least! It's the same feature branch URL

Re: Hygienic rewrite of (ice-9 expect)

I've rebased my changes onto a fork of Guile's main branch on Github: https://github.com/dadinn/guile/tree/wip-hygienic-expect Added back the original attributions and comments. I've also tried to follow the branch-naming conventions. 😉 Also, I've added a module ice-9/expect-tests for some compre

Re: Hygienic rewrite of (ice-9 expect)

>p 29-05-2023 om 03:40 schreef Daniel Dinnyes: Thanks for the reply. On Sun, 28 May 2023 at 14:39, Maxime Devos > wrote: I think this would gather more replies if:   1. It is sent as a patch that can be applied to the Guile source tree. (You wr

Re: Hygienic rewrite of (ice-9 expect)

Thanks for the reply. On Sun, 28 May 2023 at 14:39, Maxime Devos wrote: > I think this would gather more replies if: > > 1. It is sent as a patch that can be applied to the Guile source tree. > (You wrote: > > > If the community likes this implementation, I would be happy to > > apply/rebas

Re: Hygienic rewrite of (ice-9 expect)

I think this would gather more replies if: 1. It is sent as a patch that can be applied to the Guile source tree. (You wrote: > If the community likes this implementation, I would be happy to > apply/rebase my changes onto the official repo, and then we can go > from there! but to determine w

Re: Hygienic rewrite of (ice-9 expect)

Need to add a correction: The new interact macro captures the expect-port for input if available, and uses it as the interact/output port too. This is unless an explicit interact/output port is passed as an optional argument, in which case the lines read from default current-input-port (using ice-

Re: Hygienic rewrite of (ice-9 expect)

Hi everyone, It seems this hasn't garnered much attention. Nevertheless, meanwhile I've realised the code had a few bugs, in particular around the backwards-compatibility flag. I've done a major rewrite: - fixed couple of bugs I found in the original implementation - made implementation m

Hygienic rewrite of (ice-9 expect)

Hi everyone, I am new to this mailing list, and writing this because I have encountered some issues with ice-9 expect : The procedural expect macro has a serious problem: This syntax expects a procedure as the test express