> On Aug 7, 2022, at 07:47, Damien Mattei wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2022 at 2:44 PM Christine Lemmer-Webber <
> cweb...@dustycloud.org> wrote:
>
>> Bigloo is cool. I think it falls under the same category of Chicken,
>> which I address towards the end of:
>>
>> https://dustycloud.org/blog
One might also take a look at PreScheme:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheme_48 which is a lowlevel Sexp based system
that can generate C or Bytecode.
There’s also BitC, which was/is a sexp based lowlevel language. I cannot recall
if it compiled directly to C, or was itself a compiler to mach
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Jan Wedekind wrote:
> Hi,
> I have written a small blog post about object-oriented programming with
> GNU Guile and GOOPS [1]. Having used the Ruby programming language for some
> time, I am quite spoiled when it comes to objects ;)
> It took me a while to figur
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:14 AM, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
> Hey, here's a summer (to start with) of code idea:
>
> Rewrite GNU Screen in Guile Scheme.
> Bonus points for adding "vertical split" a la tmux.
>
Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't screen *have* vertical split a la
tmux?
http://i.
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
> () Andrew Gwozdziewycz
> () Thu, 8 Mar 2012 06:02:46 -0500
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't screen
> *have* vertical split a la tmux?
>
> http://i.imgur.com/IXdEF.png
>
> Certain
That's exactly what I was thinking, Kernel that is. But, I didn't
wanna sound like an idiot saying, "if only we had FExprs"...
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Andy Wingo wrote:
> On Tue 13 Sep 2011 12:09, "Bill Schottstaedt"
> writes:
>
>> if lambda were applicable, this would work in both cas
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Bill Schottstaedt
wrote:
> if lambda were applicable, this would work in both cases:
>
> (define-macro (progv vars vals . body)
> `(apply (apply lambda ,vars ',body) ,vals))
>
>> (let ((s '(one two)) (v '(1 2))) (progv s v (+ one two)))
> 3
>> (progv '(one two) '(
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Panicz Maciej Godek
wrote:
> 2011/9/13, Andrew Gwozdziewycz :
>>
>> Seems likely that you could use `syntax-case' to create a `let` out of
>> these:
>>
>> (define-syntax progv
>> (lambda (stx)
>> (define (
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Panicz Maciej Godek
wrote:
> Hello,
> Is there any clever way of binding values to the list of unknown
> symbols in scheme?
>
> In common lisp there is a form "progv" that takes the list of symbols
> and their corresponding values and binds them within the body of
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Panicz Maciej Godek
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> Is there any clever way of binding values to the list of unknown
>> symbols in scheme?
>>
>> In common lisp there is a
10 matches
Mail list logo
