Am 17.11.2013 03:02, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
I've tweaked the readable code to address some of the portability issues
that Joerg Wittenberger noted. It should now be easier to port the code to
other Schemes.
The main code now uses R6RS/R7RS exception syntax and makes a call to a
special
Am 17.11.2013 00:59, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
On 16 Nov 2013 22:16:27 +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger
joerg.wittenber...@softeyes.net wrote:
As to wish lists: at the moment I have no need use for `set-read-mode`.
Once I'm there I'll want this thread-safe. I'd turn toplevel variables it
modifies
David A. Wheeler scripsit:
Hmm. R7RS has make-parameter, as does SRFI-39. But guile 1.6 has
neither, and I don't know how widely-available these really are.
The implementation given in R7RS is pretty portable, but should *not*
be used on Schemes with their own implementations, because it may
Am 17.11.2013 21:13, schrieb John Cowan:
David A. Wheeler scripsit:
Hmm. R7RS has make-parameter, as does SRFI-39. But guile 1.6 has
neither, and I don't know how widely-available these really are.
The implementation given in R7RS is pretty portable, but should *not*
be used on Schemes
In an attempt to better understand and document the source code I added
type annotations (using the chicken's syntax and using chicken to verify
it).
So far I'm only through to the read-related procedures.
But it's so much, I solicit comments from those who know the code.
At least it still
Jörg F. Wittenberger scripsit:
Let's try by example:
(define x (make-parameter #f))
Does this:
(x #t)
count as mutation in this respect or is it the way you do a rebind?
That is indeed mutation. You can work around the lack of mutation thus:
(define x (make-parameter (cons #f
David A. Wheeler scripsit:
I like this idea. In a few places this patch changes return values
to intentionally return (values)... which is also okay by me.
For the record, I've never been a fan of returning zero values when you
have nothing in particular to return. R6RS and R7RS authorize
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:13:33 +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger
joerg.wittenber...@softeyes.net wrote:
Here a patch to be applied atop of the one introducing parameters for global.
Excellent! I took this patch, but I did make a number of changes:
- I haven't accepted the make-parameters approach for
David A. Wheeler scripsit:
I like this idea. In a few places this patch changes return values
to intentionally return (values)... which is also okay by me.
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:33:16 -0500, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote:
For the record, I've never been a fan of returning zero
David A. Wheeler scripsit:
That is just mistaken, erroneous, fallacious, ill-judged, and in a
thousand other ways wrong. It may be standards-compliant, but still
wrong. That is really awful, I would never have guessed that. Since
the return value CAN'T matter, it SHOULD NOT matter!!!
10 matches
Mail list logo
