Hi Neil,
Neil Jerram wrote:
I still think that something within the language would be useful,
Jon,
You may well be right. Although my initial thought was to see it as
more natural to run guile within an editor (or some kind of IDE, more
generally), having the other way round available as we
Jon Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Thien and Neil,
> Those both sound like good solutions. However, I was thinking of
> something within the language itself, rather than something outside,
> like emacs. This is partly because I don't use emacs, myself, and I am
> not particularly familia
Hi Thien and Neil,
Those both sound like good solutions. However, I was thinking of something
within the language itself, rather than something outside, like emacs.
This is partly because I don't use emacs, myself, and I am not particularly
familiar with its capabilities versus vim. Heck, I'm
"Jon Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi all,
> I just had a random idea, and thought I'd run it by y'all. What if you
> could compose modules from the REPL, and then write them to a file?
Or alternatively you could write some Emacs Scheme mode support to
allow you to evaluate definitions
From: "Jon Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 18:31:55 -0700
(define mod (make-module (my modulename)))
(define f1 (lambda () (display "f1")))
(define value 7)
(add-export mod f1 value)
(write-module-file "my_modulename.scm")
you can use `define-module' in a r
Hi all,
I just had a random idea, and thought I'd run it by y'all. What if you
could compose modules from the REPL, and then write them to a file?
Something like:
(define mod (make-module (my modulename)))
(define f1 (lambda () (display "f1")))
(define value 7)
(add-export mod f1 value)
(write-m
