Re: Internal WIKI Links do not work on WSL2 Debian

Hi Olaf, *"Did you try 127.0.0.1:5000 instead of localhost:5000 ?"* just as a documentation, my experience is that: 1) WSL2 / w3m : all of these work http://localhost:5000 http://127.0.0.1:5000 http://0.0.0.0:5000 2) WIN10 / edge : only this works http://localhost:5000

Re: Internal WIKI Links do not work on WSL2 Debian

Hi Alex, yes, $NAME was the computername ("asuspn"), and by setting name to $ echo $NAME 5000 everything works, I even get the wiki page with CSS then like in the real wiki. So, problem identified and solved, thanks! Cheers Thorsten Am Mi., 19. Jan. 2022 um 17:56 Uhr schrieb Alexander

Re: Internal WIKI Links do not work on WSL2 Debian

Hi Thorsten, > I looks actually as designed: > in function baseHRef in http.l is this line > > (or Port (if *SesId *Port *Port1)) > > and *Port1 is the Computername. Correct, though not the Computername. IFF the PicoLisp server is started behind a httqGate, the "port" is the application

Re: Internal WIKI Links do not work on WSL2 Debian

http://localhost:asuspn/?h <http://localhost:5000/?help>ome are supposed to work before a session id is acquired, but somehow they do work on normal Linux. Since (session P H) is called with the Port P (5000), why not use it for URL construction (instead of *Port1)? Cheers Thorsten

Re: Internal WIKI Links do not work on WSL2 Debian

Hi Thorsten, thanks for your solution! Just to be curious: Did you try 127.0.0.1:5000 instead of localhost:5000 ? Same pn-replacing effect? Regards, Olaf On 19.01.22 00:20, Thorsten Jolitz wrote: > Hi List, > today I figured out what seems to be the problem here:  > Somehow the URLs are

Re: Internal WIKI Links do not work on WSL2 Debian

Hi Thorsten, > today I figured out what seems to be the problem here: > Somehow the URLs are built with the computername instead of the port: > http://0.0.0.0:asuspn/?home > > Replacing asuspn with 5000 all of these work, even from (say) Edge in > Win10, when pil wiki server was started on WSL2:

Re: Internal WIKI Links do not work on WSL2 Debian

Hi List, today I figured out what seems to be the problem here: Somehow the URLs are built with the computername instead of the port: http://0.0.0.0:asuspn/?home Replacing asuspn with 5000 all of these work, even from (say) Edge in Win10, when pil wiki server was started on WSL2:

Re: Internal WIKI Links do not work on WSL2 Debian

Hi Alex, yes, *ID is NIL when I debug it (see PS1). I'm not sure how to debug (app), but all global vars except *PID seem to be NIL ... I think it's a WSL2 localhost problem, not a bug in PicoLisp. Not too long ago I tried accessing the pil wiki server running on WSL2 from the Win10 Browser (say

Re: Internal WIKI Links do not work on WSL2 Debian

Hi Thorsten, Olaf, > it's a session problem. > Port 8080 does not help, but I cross checked on Archlinux, when I first > click on the Login link, a session prefix is added to the internal links, > and after login, that session prefix is everywhere in the html source. > But on WSL2 that does not

Re: Internal WIKI Links do not work on WSL2 Debian

Win10 / WSL2 (Debian unstable) > > - Archlinux > > and while in both cases I do see the start page of the wiki on > > http://localhost:5000, only the external Menu links work on WSL2, not > > the wiki internal links (nor the login). > > > > What is quite nice now, on W

Re: Internal WIKI Links do not work on WSL2 Debian

10 / WSL2 (Debian unstable) > -  Archlinux > and while in both cases I do see the start page of the wiki on > http://localhost:5000, only the external Menu links work on WSL2, not > the wiki internal links (nor the login).  > > What is quite nice now, on Win10 I can access the running

Re: Internal WIKI Links do not work on WSL2 Debian

st,  > I have the newest pil21 and the current picolisp wiki running on  > - Win10 / WSL2 (Debian unstable) > -  Archlinux > and while in both cases I do see the start page of the wiki on > http://localhost:5000, only the external Menu links work on WSL2, not > the wiki internal links (nor

Internal WIKI Links do not work on WSL2 Debian

Hi List, I have the newest pil21 and the current picolisp wiki running on - Win10 / WSL2 (Debian unstable) - Archlinux and while in both cases I do see the start page of the wiki on http://localhost:5000, only the external Menu links work on WSL2, not the wiki internal links (nor the login

Re: what does prepending a "+" to an argument to vip do?

t; > (link > >(cons > > (cond > > ((= "+" S) T) > > ((format S) @) > > (T (cdr (chop S))) ) &

Re: what does prepending a "+" to an argument to vip do?

((= "+" S) T) > ((format S) @) > (T (cdr (chop S))) ) > (opt) ) ) ) > ... > I think it means "do something special when the argument starts with "+". Correct. It fi

what does prepending a "+" to an argument to vip do?

((pre? "-" S) (load S)) (T (link S)) ) ) ) ) ) 0 1 ) ) I think it means "do something special when the argument starts with "+". But I don't know what that is. I've tried running `vip +hello`, and it opens a temporary file in the picolisp tmp fo

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

Hi Andras, > Perfect, it works as expected on macOS. Great! :) > Finally I’ve got demoApp working: the culprit was the Safari browser. > With Firefox it works! I see. But then the Pil GUI must somehow be faulty too. ☺/ A!ex -- UNSUBSCRIBE:

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

Hi Alex, Perfect, it works as expected on macOS. Finally I’ve got demoApp working: the culprit was the Safari browser. With Firefox it works! Regards, Andras Pahi > On 2021. Apr 17., at 16:54, Alexander Burger wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 04:35:09PM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote: >>

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 04:35:09PM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote: > OK, as ppoll() works fine on Linux (tests passed), I will keep it. This covers > most use cases, including Servers (Debian), PilBox (Android) and smaller stuff > (Raspi). > > I put an #ifdef for other systems, using poll() and

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 04:21:53PM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote: > Hmm, I'm just testing the ppoll() version ... What to do? OK, as ppoll() works fine on Linux (tests passed), I will keep it. This covers most use cases, including Servers (Debian), PilBox (Android) and smaller stuff (Raspi).

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

. What to do? ☺/ A!ex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

Hi Alex, Just one remark, ppoll(2) is Linux-specific. I know there is a perfectly portable API - Linux. Regards, Andras Pahi > On 2021. Apr 17., at 15:53, Alexander Burger wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 02:15:42PM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote: >> But as you saw in my last mail, the whole

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 02:15:42PM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote: > But as you saw in my last mail, the whole question is obsolete. I have to > adjust > pil21 anyway. I will use ppoll(2). ☺/ A!ex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

Hi Andras, > Maybe the definition of > > #define __INT_MAX__ 2147483647 > > could be used ? It is predefined by the clang/gcc preprocessor. Yeah, should be portable enough. But as you saw in my last mail, the whole question is obsolete. I have to adjust pil21 anyway. ☺/ A!ex --

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

Hi all, On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 01:02:20PM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote: > Hmm, too bad! I tested here with 64-bit integers with > >#if (int)-1 == 0x > > and it worked. Uuhh! Sorry! I was completely off the track! 'int' is *always* 32 bit in size, on every system I've

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

Hi Alex, Maybe the definition of #define __INT_MAX__ 2147483647 could be used ? It is predefined by the clang/gcc preprocessor. Regards, Andras Pahi > On 2021. Apr 17., at 13:02, Alexander Burger wrote: > Unfortunately, "#if sizeof(int) == 4" is not allowed in C, that's why I used > the >

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

Hi Andras, > According to the man page on macOS, poll returns: > > [EINVAL] The nfds argument is greater than OPEN_MAX or the > timeout argument is less than -1. That explains it! So the specification of poll() is indeed different from the Linux one. >

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

Hi Alex, Thank you for looking after this. According to the man page on macOS, poll returns: [EINVAL] The nfds argument is greater than OPEN_MAX or the timeout argument is less than -1. The check at compile time is not triggered on macOS, the following

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

Hi Andras, > It is very strange indeed, on macOS Mojave gPoll() receives sometimes timeout > values which when casted to (int) results in values less than -1 (eg. -3). > This results in EINVAL errors in poll(). The EINVAL is indeed strange. According to the man page any negative timout should

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

Hi, It is very strange indeed, on macOS Mojave gPoll() receives sometimes timeout values which when casted to (int) results in values less than -1 (eg. -3). This results in EINVAL errors in poll(). I have inserted a code snippet which truncates the timeout to -1 then I can get to the login page

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

$ picolisp -wait [fds=0x0][nfds=0][timeout=9223372036854775807] [fds=0x0][nfds=0][timeout=9223372036854775807] [fds=0x0][nfds=0][timeout=9223372036854775807] [fds=0x0][nfds=0][timeout=9223372036854775807] [fds=0x0][nfds=0][timeout=9223372036854775807] [fds=0x0][nfds=0][timeout=9223372036854775807]

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

Hi Alex, Thank you for your suggestions, I have traced listen and wait and both have The parameters are as expected (Ms is NIL, Sd is 17). As Mike tested on macOS Big Sur and it worked, the problem is in my setup. Regards, Andras > On 2021. Apr 15., at 19:11, Alexander Burger wrote: > > Hi

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

r: Invalid argument >> >> … >> ap? Select error: Invalid argument >> ap? Segmentation fault: 11 >> >> It has the same behavior as the previous version of pil21. >> >> Regards, >> Andras Pahi >> >>> On 2021. Apr 15., at 12:51,

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

gt; ap? Select error: Invalid argument > > … > ap? Select error: Invalid argument > ap? Segmentation fault: 11 > > It has the same behavior as the previous version of pil21. > > Regards, > Andras Pahi > >> On 2021. Apr 15., at 12:51, Alexander Burger wrote: >> On

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

Hi Andras, > > /pil app/main.l -ap~main -'go 4040' + > 6538 = 58885 48782252818959702~ > ap: !? (wait Ms T "Sd") > Select error: Invalid argument > ... > It has the same behavior as the previous version of pil21. Yeah, I thought about it, and came to the conclusion that today's change in

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

Burger wrote: >> Looks like I should do that. > > Done! > > Can somebody test on a Macintosh or other BSDs? > > ☺/ A!ex > > -- > UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 08:32:32AM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote: >> That's too bad! If poll(2) uses only 32 bits for the timeout, the maximum is >> 49 >> days (as opposed to the 292 million years (292MY) in 64 bits). > > Not even that! For signed 32 bits it is only 24 days :( > > Should I

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 09:34:50AM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote: > Looks like I should do that. Done! Can somebody test on a Macintosh or other BSDs? ☺/ A!ex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 08:42:04AM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote: > Should I change the design of waitFd() to use only 32 bits? Looks like I should do that. poll(2) is badly specified, using only int for the timeout. But we have to live with that, there may be other ABIs (other BSDs?) wh

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 08:32:32AM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote: > That's too bad! If poll(2) uses only 32 bits for the timeout, the maximum is > 49 > days (as opposed to the 292 million years (292MY) in 64 bits). Not even that! For signed 32 bits it is only 24 days :( Should I change the

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 08:07:21AM +0200, Andras Pahi wrote: > Hi, > > Yes, ‘int’ is 32bit on macOS, even when compiling to 64bit. > The pil21 demoApp does not work on macOS. Thanks Andras! That's too bad! If poll(2) uses only 32 bits for the timeout, the maximum is 49 days (as opposed to the

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

Hi, Yes, ‘int’ is 32bit on macOS, even when compiling to 64bit. The pil21 demoApp does not work on macOS. pahihu sizeof(char) = 1 sizeof(short) = 2 sizeof(int) = 4 sizeof(long) = 8 sizeof(long long) = 8 sizeof(float) = 4 sizeof(double) = 8 sizeof(long double) = 16 sizeof(void*) = 8 > On 2021.

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 07:46:35AM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote: > Hi all, > > I just stumbled across this mail in the archive. I have not received it, and > the > sending e-mail address seems just "picolisp". > > > picolisp Sun, 11 Apr 2021 15:05:25 -0700 Ah, that's all right! There is

Re: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

Hi all, I just stumbled across this mail in the archive. I have not received it, and the sending e-mail address seems just "picolisp". > picolisp Sun, 11 Apr 2021 15:05:25 -0700 > > I am trying to fix infinite select errors about 292MY. > > On my mac (int)9223372036854775807 == -1 which means no

pil21: Why do waitFd and gPoll use 292MY for timeout?

I am trying to fix infinite select errors about 292MY. src/lib.c: int32_t gPoll(struct pollfd *fds, int32_t nfds, int64_t timeout) { if (timeout == 9223372036854775807) { // 292MY int i = nfds; do if (--i < 0) return 0; wh

Re: Do free

On 16.05.20 12:42, Alexander Burger wrote: > I can't help him ... No, of course you can't, neither the community. There were many posts here of the community which argued in a fair manner to him, but I think, one can't stop a sender like him. He was not able to receive any more. So don't

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 05:06:31PM +0200, Alexander Shendi (Web.DE) wrote: > Can't you simply bounce his mails? I'm afraid handing matters over to the > police isn't going to be effective. It is all not effective I believe. I just ignore it ... ☺/ A!ex -- UNSUBSCRIBE:

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

Can't you simply bounce his mails? I'm afraid handing matters over to the police isn't going to be effective. Am 16. Mai 2020 12:42:17 MESZ schrieb Alexander Burger : >On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 04:06:47PM +0200, pd wrote: >> Thanks Alex for your absolute amazing and beautiful work and

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

Nice to hear is fun for you, for me is fun to use picolisp and also this list where you are do accesible and kind, it's a real privilege! Sad to know of that bulling, usually the better is simply ignore him but sometimes it's not enough. Hope this stop quickly Regards El sáb., 16 may. 2020 12

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

Wow that guy is really pain in the ass.. sorry about that Alex, is it possible to report him to the authorities for cyber-bullying? not sure of the right term.. On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 7:47 PM Alexander Burger wrote: > On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 04:06:47PM +0200, pd wrote: > > Thanks Alex for your

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 04:06:47PM +0200, pd wrote: > Thanks Alex for your absolute amazing and beautiful work and dedication. Thank you all too! For me it is a lot of fun :) > Fortunately noise is over and list returns to pure signal. Yes indeed! Unfortunately for me it is not over. Guido

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

Thanks Alex for your absolute amazing and beautiful work and dedication. Fortunately noise is over and list returns to pure signal. El vie., 8 may. 2020 0:15, David Bloom escribió: > FWIW I have been enjoying a fantastic feature of e-mail, FILTERS! > > Thanks Alex and community for your work,

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

FWIW I have been enjoying a fantastic feature of e-mail, FILTERS! Thanks Alex and community for your work, your examples, your help when someone posts to the list, and most of all for being sane voices in a less than sane world. On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 3:52 PM wrote: > On Wed, 06 May 2020 17:02

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

On Wed, 06 May 2020 17:02 -04:00, Brian Cleary wrote: > It's the end of an error. This was my favorite. hehe. -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

compiler really is, in difference > > to a AOT Ahead of Time Compiler. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in-time_compilation > > > > Make ZEROpointZERO sense then to let Picolisp do, what Clang (the C to > > LLVM IR translator) does. > > > > If thi

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

t; >>> Hi Guido, >>> >>> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 08:35:33PM +0200, Guido Stepken wrote: >>> > Perhaps you *all* learn, what a JIT compiler really is, in difference >>> > to a AOT Ahead of Time Compiler. >>> > >>> > https:/

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

ou *all* learn, what a JIT compiler really is, in difference >> > to a AOT Ahead of Time Compiler. >> > >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in-time_compilation >> > >> > Make ZEROpointZERO sense then to let Picolisp do, what Clang (the C to >>

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

mpiler. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in-time_compilation > > > > Make ZEROpointZERO sense then to let Picolisp do, what Clang (the C to > > LLVM IR translator) does. > > > > If this is really the case, it promise, i say 'goodbye' from PicoLisp > > mailin

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

Hi Guido, On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 08:35:33PM +0200, Guido Stepken wrote: > Perhaps you *all* learn, what a JIT compiler really is, in difference > to a AOT Ahead of Time Compiler. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in-time_compilation > > Make ZEROpointZERO sense then

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

On 5/6/20 11:35 AM, Guido Stepken wrote: If this is really the case, it promise, i say 'goodbye' from PicoLisp mailing list!!! I promise! Oh, Guido, please don't make promises you can't keep 藍 -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:11 PM John Duncan wrote: > > Just wanted to tell you how much I appreciate your work. I hope you find a > blowhard like Guido amusing and not too irritating. I get the impression he’s > hardly written a line of code in his life, and that was probably in Java. Just

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

Perhaps you *all* learn, what a JIT compiler really is, in difference to a AOT Ahead of Time Compiler. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in-time_compilation Make ZEROpointZERO sense then to let Picolisp do, what Clang (the C to LLVM IR translator) does. If this is really the case, it promise

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

Another benefit of llvm is you get their dataflow analysis and optimization for free, on the myriad ARM and x64 microarchitectures as optimized as you like. That is harder to do in custom abstract assembly, as you’d have to maintain a little zoo of targets. On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 13:08 wrote

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

> On 06.05.20 18:42, John Duncan wrote: > Picolisp is interpreted. Even the llvm version is just creating an > interpreter. There is no JIT. Exactly! Guido, you should really stop talking about things you so obviously have no understanding of. There is NO COMPILING when executing program written

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

Ursprüngliche Nachricht   Von: gstep...@gmail.com Gesendet: 6. Mai 2020 17:36 An: picolisp@software-lab.de Antworten: picolisp@software-lab.de Betreff: Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law? Am Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2020 schrieb Joh-Tob Schäg : >Each

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

Picolisp is interpreted. Even the llvm version is just creating an interpreter. There is no JIT. On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 12:36 Guido Stepken wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2020 schrieb : > > > Read Wikipedia: > > > > LLVM allows code to be compiled statically, as it is under the > traditional GCC

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

Am Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2020 schrieb : > Read Wikipedia: > > LLVM allows code to be compiled statically, as it is under the traditional GCC system, or left for late-compiling from the IR to machine code via just-in-time compilation (JIT) Wikipedia might have missed the chapter: "Extreme Laziness -

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

On 06.05.20 17:29, Guido Stepken wrote: > > Also the size of LLVM doesn't matter since it is only necessary when > compiling the binary. You can likely download binaries Alex built just > as you can do. > > "Compiling the binary" is funny pil21, sitting on top

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

Am Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2020 schrieb Joh-Tob Schäg : > >> Sigh! How often have I told here that the main purpose of pil21 is portability? > Do you see any portablity problems: > https://luajit.org/luajit.html > iOS obviously *is* supported. Tons of games are using LuaJIT on all

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

(tiny, in comparison >> >> to LLVM), more portable. He's from Munich. >> > >> > Useless. >> >> Ah, really? >> >> > Sigh! How often have I told here that the main purpose of pil21 is portability? >> >> Do you see any portablity pr

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

eply that you can build it from scratch using other toolchains? Then show how *you* would do it, give directions, show some code and offer your collaboration. Unless you go that way, all you say is blah blah and you're saying it in a quite unrespectful and selfish manner, by the way. For now,

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

> Sigh! How often have I told here that the main purpose of pil21 is > portability? Do you see any portablity problems: https://luajit.org/luajit.html iOS obviously *is* supported. Tons of games are using LuaJIT on all kinds of platforms. Of course, always with DYNASM as JIT IR below.

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

LVM), more portable. He's from Munich. > > > > Useless. > > Ah, really? > > > Sigh! How often have I told here that the main purpose of pil21 is > portability? > > Do you see any portablity problems: > > https://luajit.org/luajit.html > > iOS obviou

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

hatever? You know Picolisp so deeply that you can build it from scratch using other toolchains? Then show how *you* would do it, give directions, show some code and offer your collaboration. Unless you go that way, all you say is blah blah and you're saying it in a quite unrespectful and sel

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

PilBox, yes. Also one of your brilliant ideas ... Something similar already exists since a couple of years ... https://jasonette.com/, renamed to https://jasonelle.com/ Some Google guys picked up the idea and made FLUTTER: One code, two binaries for Android and iOS. Dart Programming Language.

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

Also, I see no problem in, for example, Guido trying to prove the point by making a PicoLisp clone in the runtime of his choice :) IIRC, we already have the Ersatz (Java) port of picolisp. On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 4:23 PM George-Phillip Orais wrote: > > Hi Guido, > > Thank you for sharing your

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

I don't discourage him. I present facts. LLVM contains plenty of AI code, especially for generating code for NVIDIA chips. Since January 1st there are export restrictions for AI code to China now.

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

Hi Guido, Thank you for sharing your insights here, I have fun reading them. But please respect Alex decision in using LLVM for pil21, its his choice and its his programming language, so please stop discouraging him. BR, Geo On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 10:12 PM John Duncan wrote: > Hey Alex,

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

Hi John, > Just wanted to tell you how much I appreciate your work. I hope you find a > blowhard like Guido amusing and not too irritating. I get the impression > he’s hardly written a line of code in his life, and that was probably in > Java. Thanks a lot John! :) ☺/ A!ex -- UNSUBSCRIBE:

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

Hey Alex, Just wanted to tell you how much I appreciate your work. I hope you find a blowhard like Guido amusing and not too irritating. I get the impression he’s hardly written a line of code in his life, and that was probably in Java. Take care! John On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 07:59 Alexander

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

h! How often have I told here that the main purpose of pil21 is portability? Do you see any portablity problems: https://luajit.org/luajit.html iOS obviously *is* supported. Tons of games are using LuaJIT on all kinds of platforms. Of course, always with DYNASM as JIT IR below. > I nee

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 12:51:33PM +0200, Guido Stepken wrote: > Use Mike's DYNASM JIT Engine. Better, faster, smaller (tiny, in comparison > to LLVM), more portable. He's from Munich. Useless. Sigh! How often have I told here that the main purpose of pil21 is portability? I need it to build

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

Hi Alex! Yes! -10 for using LLVM, that falls under US export restrictions (ECRA). AI software is no longer allowed to export to e.g. China, since January 1st. So if you have compiled-in a single line of LLVM code into pil21, you're in real trouble now, because of pilog, which is certainly a kind

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 09:55:08AM +0200, Guido Stepken wrote: > Lisp, as functional language, should > better be implemented in a functional language Point for pil21 :) -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

There are plenty of free implementations of Lisp language in Pascal, Modula 2/3, Oberon out there. E.g. https://github.com/bobappleyard/pascal-lisp/blob/master/README But all that makes no real sense. Lisp, as functional language, should better be implemented in a functional language, such as

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

ike in a distributed, decentralized (this is not the same!) blockchain, see Bitcoin database. Means you will have to implement the following: All database servers, now listen up! Yeah! (server 1) Yeah! (server 2) Yeah! ... Yeah! ... I would like to insert 42 at symbol "Noclue"! Ca

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

Hi Guido, Want to hear your thoughts about, what if PicoLisp is implemented in Pascal or Modula or Oberon? Will it be cool or not? BR, Geo On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 2:46 PM Guido Stepken wrote: > In international law, signing such a contract, as Anaconda Eula is called > "self binding". Those

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

In international law, signing such a contract, as Anaconda Eula is called "self binding". Those ideas in law go back to John Locke, Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes. British and American law differ between binding contracts and common law. But in those countries, signing such a contract binds you to

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

>From the philosphical point of view, 64 bit integer is the same as 64 bit float, except for, that you give certain bits a different meaning. Picolisp gives you total freedom, to decide, what to do with those 64 (or even more!!!) bits. Either you can store 4x 16 bit as so called "minifloa

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

Hi Guido > Anaconda is a well known, free Software Installer for Python and R > packages, mostly used under Windows, right? > > And you think, that "free software" packages cannot be restricted by > US ministry of trade or U.S. president, such as happened in Huawei > Google case, right? Plain

Re: Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

You being an interesting personality, I have just mildly related question. What is your opinion on picolisp's floating point situation? (this is one reason why I did not even attempt to delve too much into it apart from some small experiments in REPL, though obviously I still find it and community

Do free Open Source Foundation's Software Stacks fall under US Export Law?

Interesting question, isn't it? Let's have a look into my findings! Anaconda is a well known, free Software Installer for Python and R packages, mostly used under Windows, right? And you think, that "free software" packages cannot be restricted by US ministry of trade or U.S. president, such as

Re: How do I read HTTP body while using web.l

Hi Kashyap, > While my question was about the server side - it is super cool to learn > about "ssl" - although I am curious - was there a reason why "POST" was > left out of it? Good question! To be true, 'ssl' serves mainly other purposes (running as a daemon synchronizing databases), and the

Re: How do I read HTTP body while using web.l

Hey Alex, While my question was about the server side - it is super cool to learn about "ssl" - although I am curious - was there a reason why "POST" was left out of it? Also I agree about the point of parsing a program generated JSON looks like an overkill is many cases. Hey Andreas - I dont

Re: How do I read HTTP body while using web.l

Hi Andreas, > Web.l is a server-side framework. > ... Thanks! I've seen it, but never found the time to study it :) ☺/ A!ex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Re: How do I read HTTP body while using web.l

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 09:18:47AM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote: > (from "\"EUR\"") > (from "\"last\" : ") > (read) ) Just for completeness: In the real case, I do not use 'read' as above. I handle our long-discussed fixpo

Re: How do I read HTTP body while using web.l

a HTTP server, and for small (toy) applications. It's a simple/simplified HTTP server, and the code is pretty transparent. I do not recommend to use web.l for larger or critical production applications - I think it just makes it too easy to program severe stability issues and security holes

Re: How do I read HTTP body while using web.l

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 09:08:44AM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote: >(in '("@bin/ssl" "blockchain.info" 443 "de/ticker") > (while (line)) # Skip header > (readJson) ) Having discussed about Json all the time, let me say that in fact I never used 'readJson' etc. I feel it is

Re: How do I read HTTP body while using web.l

Hi Andreas, On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 08:27:19AM +0200, andr...@itship.ch wrote: > In web.l framework, you you define a request handler using (dh). I do not know the web.l framework, but like to add that using either 'client' (from "@lib/http.l") or @bin/ssl is a bit simpler. 'clien

Re: How do I read HTTP body while using web.l

) at the end (defined in web.l/web.l), which in turn tries to find a suitable request-handler as defined with (dh) in the application code. So when you do (readJson) within the request handler, (readJson) is reading from stdin, which here is the http connection socket, but the stdin/socket

  1   2   >