Hello,
> What tends to happen is that people that want to do this consider
> themselves Scheme programmers, first and foremost, and who do not
> identify themselves with one Scheme system; so they release their code
> on their own site, with info on using it with various systems, and send
> mails
Hi Noah,
On Sun 30 Jan 2011 17:08, Noah Lavine writes:
> My question is, what should I do to let other Scheme variants know
> this is happening and get them involved?
C.L.S, currently. It could be that there is a need for another forum,
but I don't know.
What tends to happen is that people th
On Sun 30 Jan 2011 16:48, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> The “R7RS” lists are accessible read-only via Gmane:
>
> http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.scheme.reports
I believe this one is available for anyone to post on. The other two
are moderated.
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
Hi,
>> I think several Schemes already have a dynamic FFI with a C parser.
>> Bigloo has one (info "(bigloo) Automatic extern clauses generation"),
>> and it’s GPL’d code, which we could reuse. Larceny has something too.
>
> Oh, great. Can Guile reuse GPL'd code, though, since it is LGPL?
We cou
Hello,
> I think several Schemes already have a dynamic FFI with a C parser.
> Bigloo has one (info "(bigloo) Automatic extern clauses generation"),
> and it’s GPL’d code, which we could reuse. Larceny has something too.
Oh, great. Can Guile reuse GPL'd code, though, since it is LGPL? I see
that
Hi Noah,
I think several Schemes already have a dynamic FFI with a C parser.
Bigloo has one (info "(bigloo) Automatic extern clauses generation"),
and it’s GPL’d code, which we could reuse. Larceny has something too.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
Hello all,
Thanks a lot for the points. Let me be more specific and see what you
think of this idea, and if there is a good forum for dealing with it.
I think that having a C parser will be a good feature for Guile,
because it will let us make C FFI connection automatic by parsing C
header files.
Hi!
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Sat 29 Jan 2011 23:54, Hans Aberg writes:
>
>> On 29 Jan 2011, at 21:53, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>
I think there should be a mailing list for people who implement
Schemes, to sort of coordinate our non-standard features. ...
>>
>>> I think comp.lang.scheme
On Sat 29 Jan 2011 23:54, Hans Aberg writes:
> On 29 Jan 2011, at 21:53, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>
>>> I think there should be a mailing list for people who implement
>>> Schemes, to sort of coordinate our non-standard features. ...
>
>> I think comp.lang.scheme is already a good place for this.
() Noah Lavine
() Sat, 29 Jan 2011 16:23:39 -0500
a lot less coordination among Schemes
right now than there should be
Scheme is a fun platform for experimentation,
which is sometimes at odds w/ coordination.
Personally, i wouldn't sweat it overmuch.
On 29 Jan 2011, at 21:53, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
I think there should be a mailing list for people who implement
Schemes, to sort of coordinate our non-standard features. ...
I think comp.lang.scheme is already a good place for this. You
quickly
get feedback and many implementors seem to p
Hello,
> I think comp.lang.scheme is already a good place for this. You quickly
> get feedback and many implementors seem to participate in it.
Oh, great. I didn't know about that.
Although I must say, it seems like there is a lot less coordination
among Schemes right now than there should be.
Hi Noah,
Noah Lavine writes:
> I think there should be a mailing list for people who implement
> Schemes, to sort of coordinate our non-standard features. For
> instance, you could email the list and say "hey, Guile is thinking of
> adding a unicode library with this interface. Does anyone else
Hello all,
This is unusual as it is not really a Guile-specific message, but I
was reading recently about the r7rs process and then about SRFIs, and
I had an idea.
I think there should be a mailing list for people who implement
Schemes, to sort of coordinate our non-standard features. For
instanc
14 matches
Mail list logo
