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. E.G.,:
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.
Here
Sure CDATA could solve the problem. So could encoding as lt; .
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 -
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
.
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?
Embedding in XML seems to have broad uses these days and I
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
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
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
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 match.
Sure. I just did not want
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:
Not too bad and idea. While it might not scale to whole programs
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 co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote:
As of the last time I looked, cond-expand wasn't supported by Racket,
Am 25.11.2013 15:14, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 12:24:23 +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger
joerg.wittenber...@softeyes.net wrote:
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
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
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
joerg.wittenber...@softeyes.net wrote:
Why all the redefines from body
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)))
(else
Am 22.11.2013 04:45, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:29:58 +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger
joerg.wittenber...@softeyes.net wrote:
I tried for now to keep the compatibility layer before the actual
module. But that might leak definitions (like the rudimentary guard
implementation
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
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
joerg.wittenber...@softeyes.net wrote:
In a first attempt to feed the source to some other Scheme I went ahead
and sent it to the rscheme
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 it).
I like this idea. In a few places
Am 17.11.2013 22:17, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:13:09 -0500, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org 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
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 chicken's syntax and using chicken
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
co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote:
There is a gimmick we could use. We could create a reset port
function
that *REMOVES* the entry from the hashtable
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
Am 18.11.2013 15:25, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:23:32 +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger
joerg.wittenber...@softeyes.net wrote:
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
Am 18.11.2013 15:28, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 12:19:21 +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger
joerg.wittenber...@softeyes.net wrote:
I wonder: the code already creates fake port object wrappers. Wouldn't
this be the natural place to stick such per-port settings into??!!
That's
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
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
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! - does this have to be called for each
t-expr-catch
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 can discuss these
31 matches
Mail list logo
