Am 27.11.2014 um 20:03 schrieb Arne Babenhauserheide:
> Am Donnerstag, 27. November 2014, 08:47:49 schrieb David A. Wheeler:
>>> However within "normal" s-expressions or neotheric expressions I'd have
>> second thoughts. How would this be parsed?:
>>
>>> foo bar
>>> . aaa . bbb ccc
>>
>> I agree,
Am 26.11.2014 um 23:32 schrieb David A. Wheeler:
> This is a request for comment:
> In sweet-expressions, should a line beginning with "." have the same
> semantics as wisp?
>
> In wisp, I understand that a line beginning with "." is interpreted as a
> sequence of expressions at the same level.
Am 19.11.2014 um 20:48 schrieb Arne Babenhauserheide:
> And for example today Mu Lei (Nala Ginrut) had the idea of
> representing sxml templates as wisp - a case where I think the sweet
> <* *> syntax could come in really handy.
I can agree. Using SXML with sweet (in that case) works quite well.
On May 9 2014, John Cowan wrote:
>David A. Wheeler scripsit:
>
>> This would mean that {* x *} would be interpreted *differently* by a
>> curly-infix reader (or a neoteric reader) compared to a sweet-expression
>> reader.
>
>I think that's a killer.
One could also argue that there are three tok
Sure CDATA could solve the problem. So could encoding as < .
With cdata we'd need to watch that no ]]> is in sweet lisp.
Cdata does not work for attribute values.
Many web devs need to be told what cdata actually is.
Most of this embedded code is rather short. The wrapping would - too -
defeat
BTW: I'm getting warnings about unused procedures:
appende
represent-as-brace-suffix?
should those go?
--
Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out:
• 3 signs your SCM is hindering you
Hi all,
continuing on alias tokens for collecting lists.
Two aspects have made my feelings stronger that I'd actually like {* and
*}: A) As noted before, users usually know how to key them in. B) My
emacs will make it easy to skip over the block in most editing modes.
To get a feeling what
Am 08.05.2014 04:00, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
> I exclaimed:
>>> Hmm. Technically I don't think "<*" is legal at all in XML.
> On Wed, 7 May 2014 20:05:52 -0400, John Cowan
> replied:
>> It's illegal in the surface syntax. To express it in element
>> content or an attribute value, you must writ
y.
On May 7 2014, "Jörg F. Wittenberger" wrote:
>Thanks for your anwser.
>
>Am 07.05.2014 15:11, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
>> On Thu, 01 May 2014 13:58:07 +0200, "Jörg F. Wittenberger"
>>> Q2: Would it be a good idea to allow this in the official spec?
&
Hi all,
I'm just gaining experience with writing sweet lisp code. Maybe I don't
see the right solution.
I use sweet code in the context of a web application at the moment. The
framework is template based. A page can be plain HTML or - for dynamic
content - elements or attributes in a special
Am 13.02.2014 14:18, schrieb Alan Manuel Gloria:
> On 2/13/14, "Jörg F. Wittenberger" wrote:
>> Am 13.02.2014 09:50, schrieb Alan Manuel Gloria:
>>> I'm kinda sorta vaguely planning on a Scheme implementation which has
>>> STM at its core (basi
Am 13.02.2014 09:50, schrieb Alan Manuel Gloria:
> I'm kinda sorta vaguely planning on a Scheme implementation which has
> STM at its core (basically, all non-transactional mutations are
> implicitly considered to be inside tiny transactions containing only
> that mutation).
Have you seen http://
Am 06.12.2013 07:01, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
> I'm guessing Joerg Wittenberger wants something else, though :-).
> So let's talk about that.
I just wanted to know whether the current behavior was an accident or
intentional.
John's reply
http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/QuoteDelimiter
made me awa
Hi all,
it's beginning to annoy me: normal Scheme readers treat quote and
quasiquote symbols as terminating charachters when reading symbols.
With the "readable reader" they suddenly become part of a symbol. That's
all rather confusing and causes so much incompatibility.
Its this really intend
Am 27.11.2013 02:28, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
> I said:
>>> At the least, I could put things in different files, and then use "cat"
>>> to create files usable to different systems.
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 14:47:36 +0100, "Jörg F. Wittenberger":
>>
Am 27.11.2013 02:22, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:11:39 +0100, "Jörg F. Wittenberger" wrote:
I changed it's signature to match srfi-23 (for know)
(: read-error (string &rest * -> *)
Okay, but you'll need to modify the procedure definition to m
Am 25.11.2013 15:14, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
> On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 12:24:23 +0100, "Jörg F. Wittenberger"
>wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm just making my first experiences in actually using srfi-110.
>>
>> At this point I find myself for
Am 25.11.2013 23:16, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
David A. Wheeler scripsit:
How about cond-expands at the beginning to handle much of the shimming,
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 12:08:47 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
As of the last time I looked, cond-expand wasn't supported by Racket,
Scheme48/scsh, Larceny,
Hi all,
I'm just making my first experiences in actually using srfi-110.
At this point I find myself forced to make serious changes to the
program logic. Beyond what's supported by simply configuring the source
code.
The worst thing I found that it will complain on the error port when
reading
Am 23.11.2013 11:28, schrieb "Jörg F. Wittenberger":
The attached patch
Which attached patch you ask?
Here we go.
--- kernel.scm.orig 2013-11-23 11:16:19.0 +0100
+++ kernel.scm 2013-11-23 11:17:14.0 +0100
@@ -176,6 +176,97 @@
(define-module (readable kernel))
Did I say "next week"? I should rather do something else, but I can't
fight myself. :-/
Bad news this time.
Am 22.11.2013 14:59, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
> On Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:26:58 +0100, "Jörg F. Wittenberger"
>wrote:
>
>>> Why all the r
Am 22.11.2013 04:45, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:29:58 +0100, "Jörg F. Wittenberger"
> wrote:
>
>> I tried for now to keep the compatibility layer before the actual
>> module. But that might leak definitions (like the rudimentary guard
&g
The attached diff makes the whole thing compile under rscheme too (and
run some simple tests).
No changes where made, which where not strictly necessary to that end.
I'm sure you'll take issues with the positioning of cond-expand'ed stuff.
I tried for now to keep the compatibility layer before
Am 19.11.2013 05:38, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
>> Am 18.11.2013 15:25, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
>>> On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:23:32 +0100, "Jörg F. Wittenberger"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In a first attempt to feed the source to some other Schem
Am 18.11.2013 15:28, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 12:19:21 +0100, "Jörg F. Wittenberger"
>wrote:
>
>> I wonder: the code already creates "fake port" object wrappers. Wouldn't
>> this be the natural place to stick such per-port
Am 18.11.2013 15:25, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:23:32 +0100, "Jörg F. Wittenberger"
>wrote:
>
>> In a first attempt to feed the source to some other Scheme I went ahead
>> and sent it to the rscheme compiler.
>>
>> Doesn&#x
In a first attempt to feed the source to some other Scheme I went ahead
and sent it to the rscheme compiler.
Doesn't work. It has the same problem as Guile: it will refuse to read
certain #sharp syntax.
**HALT**
error: scan-token:439: #\# cannot be followed by #\:
Is there a way in Guile to s
Am 18.11.2013 10:56, schrieb "Jörg F. Wittenberger":
> Am 17.11.2013 22:17, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
>> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:13:09 -0500, John Cowan
>> wrote:
>> There is a gimmick we could use. We could create a "reset port"
>> function
>&g
Am 18.11.2013 10:38, schrieb "Jörg F. Wittenberger":
Am 17.11.2013 23:38, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:31:34 +0100, "Jörg F. Wittenberger":
In an attempt to better understand and document the source code I added
type annotations (using the chicke
Am 17.11.2013 22:17, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:13:09 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
>> I don't see any obvious way to do so, except with a weak-keyed hash
>> table mapping ports to values. Unfortunately, weak-keyed hash tables
>> are non-portable in the nature of things.
> I kn
Am 18.11.2013 04:38, schrieb John Cowan:
> David A. Wheeler scripsit:
>
>> Yes, but if that gets back to the REPL it may do something funny. By
>> definition that is undefined.
> By definition it's an undefined *value*.
Which is the actual problem: the definition.
IMHO there should be no undefin
Am 17.11.2013 23:38, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:31:34 +0100, "Jörg F. Wittenberger":
>
>> 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
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 co
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 Sche
Am 17.11.2013 16:04, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:17:18 +0100, "Jörg F. Wittenberger"
>wrote:
>> When looking at set-read-mode I'm not sure it integrates well.
>>
>> It claims that it should support per-port settings. Does no
When looking at set-read-mode I'm not sure it integrates well.
It claims that it should support per-port settings. Does not know how
to do this and me neither.
However using parameters lends itself to per-port semantics.
All we'd have to export those parameters and get to per-port settings by
Here a patch to be applied atop of the one introducing parameters for
global.
--- kernel.scm.orig 2013-11-17 15:00:41.0 +0100
+++ kernel.scm 2013-11-17 15:01:19.0 +0100
@@ -440,6 +440,9 @@
(define (type-of x) #f)
(define (type? x) #f)
+ (define (string->keyword s)
+
Am 17.11.2013 14:52, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 14:19:37 +0100, "Jörg F. Wittenberger"
>> 1. I would believe that this ought to be ((eq? exception 'readable) ...)
>> Note thee missing question mark.
> Whups. You're right, of course. I
Am 17.11.2013 00:59, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
On 16 Nov 2013 22:16:27 +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger
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 into parameter ob
Am 17.11.2013 14:19, schrieb "Jörg F. Wittenberger":
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.
Th
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
> s
Am 17.11.2013 00:27, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
> On 16 Nov 2013 21:05:11 +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger
> wrote:
>> However I have something else in mind atop. I'd like to look into mixing
>> markdown as a "front end syntax" and re-parse / pattern match data content
Am 15.11.2013 15:11, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
> The current code includes:
>>> ; Default guile stack size is FAR too small
>>> (debug-set! stack 50)
> ...
>
> On 15 Nov 2013 11:53:15 +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger:
>> So what is this "debug-set
Am 15.11.2013 15:29, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
> (Replying briefly privately, since it was sent privately - I'd be happy
> to discuss this further publicly.)
Replying publicly.
>> Here an example. I have so many of them ("grep begin *.xml" indicates
>> 162 in a single directory) that I'm asking
Am 14.11.2013 21:02, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
> I said:
>
>>> If you could help us integrate the rest of your changes into the
>>> code, that'd be great.
>>>
>>
>> Sure. Which one are missing by now?
>
> Here's what I think is missing. I'm hoping you'll join the mailing list
> soon, and that we
45 matches
Mail list logo
