Hi,
after enormous procrastination, I am now convinced that the change in
semantics of eqv? from 1.6 to 1.8 was wrong, and I think that we
should revert the eqv? behavior for the next 1.8.1 release. It's a
bug in the design and should be fixed.
(Credit goes to Aubrey Jaffer for pointing out the
Vincent De Groote [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is there a way to catch an unbound-variable exception, bind the
variable on the fly, and continue execution as if the exception didn't
occurs ?
No, unfortunately not (but read on below for an alternative solution
that doesn't use exceptions).
Dave Griffiths [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are f32 better for speed reasons anyway?
Depends. If your inner loops are written in C, then using f32 or f64
vectors should be faster, as fast as C float or double arrays. If you
use them from Scheme, then every f32vector-ref will have to box the
Jon Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi all,
In the guile manual (at
http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/docs/guile-ref/Object-Properties.html#Object%20Properties;),
in the second paragraph, we see
For example, all procedures have a `name' property, which stores
the name of the variable
We are pleased to announce the release of Guile 1.7.91. This is a
release candidate for Guile 1.8. It can be found here:
ftp://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/guile/guile-1.7.91.tar.gz
Its MD5 checksum is
b2106c1b574e22ec67c4c2178074b5ec guile-1.7.91.tar.gz
The plan is to release version 1.8.0
Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is anyone else interested in this, or even already working on it?
Uhh, the circle closes! :-)
In my other life, I am working for Nokia on the 770 and at some point
I of course compiled Guile for it. It was a no-brainer as far as I
remember.
In fact, I
Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Beaut, I gave it a bit of a tweak and applied it.
Thanks!
--
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405
___
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then you're just waiting for the nod from Marius. :)
Oh, but it looks like he's been away for a couple of months or so.
Anyway, we'll see.
I'm back! :-)
Yeah, I had accidentally disconnected myself from the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Following this discussion, I propose the following addition which
exposes the wrapping/unwrapping functions of `sockaddr' objects.
Hmm, I think your patch mixes the two ways we have to express a socket
address: one way is an argument convention used
Ken Raeburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This reminds me... was there ever a decision on the call malloc and
free from the same object on Windows issue?
My decision at that time was that we assume that there is only one
malloc and one free.
Basically, malloc and free referenced from a DLL, say
Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you do, you would need to take care of the ordering yourself, which
is quite easy by keeping objects alive in a global data structure
until they are no longer needed.
Not sure what you mean by this, though. How would this generate an
ordering?
Say
Marius Vollmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(I am a bit worried right now that the 'obvious' approach of putting
FOO and BAR into a weak key hashtable with FOO as the key and BAR as
the value does conflict a bit with my original goal of breaking up
cycles from strong values to weak keys
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Marius Vollmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here is a patch for what I have in mind. I have applied it already.
Just a note: it seems that the line
+ data = scm_i_string_chars (exp);
appears twice within the loop
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
There is probably code that relies on redefinitions being silently
interpreted as a `set!', I'm afraid. So I don't think Guile should
start issuing warnings for redefinitions by default.
The warnings would be about redefinitions that would not have
Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marius Vollmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We we already warn when importing something that shadows a core
definition, so we could as well warn when redefining one.
I thought about that for my lint program and decided it'd be too
annoying to report local
Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(I notice write style string output in iprin1() always goes
char-by-char, it'd be nice if it scanned ahead for a char needing an
escape, to send the non-escape block as a single lfwrite. Decent size
runs of plain chars are probably quite likely.)
I like
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Can one expect the increment returned by `scm_TAGvector_elements ()' to
always be 1 when TAG is `u8', 2 when TAG is `u16', and so on?
No, you can't. The increment gives the number of _elements_ between
the real elements of the vector in memory, not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Actually, you meant something like:
guile (define x 2)
guile (define 'x 3)
guile x
2
guile 'x
3
Right? The example you gave doesn't produce anything funny unless `x'
was previously defined.
Hmm, no, I meant (define 'x (* x x)).
18 matches
Mail list logo
