<sneek>up 1 day, 5 hours, 17 minutes <everstone>How do I evaluate escapes? I have (string-append "\\x" %hex-string) <rlb>wingo: is it feasible/sensible to replace C functions (say in srfi-13) with scheme functions, and/or how would that work? Some of them in my experiment, like string-tabulate, might be just about as efficient in scheme, but if so, would I put them in srfi-13.scm, or would they have to go in boot-9.scm or...? <rlb>(Hmm, or maybe that's a bad example, maybe I can make it faster in C (we'll see).) <wingo>rlb: yes it is certainly feasible and desirable!! <wingo>decreasing the amount of C is a high priority goal imo, so that rewriting the GC is easier <lemzwerg>[I'm new to freenode – not sure whether my previous message came through, thus repeating.] On the homepage of guile there is a list of applications that use guile. I suggest to add GNU LilyPond. <lemzwerg>It is, thanks. Then I suggest that you add a small line at the bottom of the 'Applications using Guile' section that links to this list. <lemzwerg>Of course, LilyPond is *not* a library, so the title of the link is misleading. <g0d_shatter>hey all, curious if anyone knows what the status of guile-ncurses is? last release was a couple of years ago, does it work with guile-3 yet? or even worth using? <wingo>lemzwerg: if you send a mail to bug-guile@gnu.org with a description of the bug, that will make a ticket in our tracker <wingo>which will be dealt with eventually. not always timely on these things but at least it will get done <wingo>janneke: hey. can you remind me what the mingw64 status is <janneke>wingo: i believe spk121 reviewed my wip-mingw branch and found all commits except two OK (please verify!) <janneke>those two were the 64bit mingw and the fix for the absolute-file-name cross-compilation bug <janneke>last thing i know was spk121 did an experiment to introduce a hash type and he said something like "i learned a lot" ... <janneke>so, i forgot whether it's a viable path and needs more, or not... <wingo>janneke: just reviewed the first 9 patches on gitlab. the ones without comments lgtm <wingo>(i hope the branch was up to date!) <janneke>so, feel free to push, but possibly align with spk121? <wingo>feel free to push any of the first 9 patches that have no comments :) <wingo>comments on the gitlab i mean <wingo>you do now :) plz do ping on irc before pushing patches <wingo>janneke: also feel free to use wip branches in the main repo <janneke>wingo: that's great, sure; so OK to push up to the first DRAFT commit, right? <wingo>janneke: there are comments on a number of those commits, right? <janneke>ah, right -- now i git what you wrote -- any that have no comment *janneke goes to push 7 commits to master, and create a new wip-mingw <wingo>janneke: there are only 3 that don't have comments, right? *janneke push a re-sorted wip-mingw <janneke>wingo: hmm...on the new wip-mingw, there are no comments on the commits below <janneke>f1d2460252 Add `scm_sigaction_for_thread' stub for MinGW. ? *janneke breaks for lunch and will wait for full alignment here ;) <wingo>if your commits get renumbered because of a rebase or whatever, you will lose gitlab comments; if you want persistent comments, make a PR <janneke>wingo: ah, comments on gitlab! right...i didn't see those, sorry -- never worked with gitlab comments *janneke was thinking/guessing: a remark in the commit message before the actual change log <janneke>wingo: check, 3 commits "Document write-line.", "ice-9 ftw: Use 'absolute-file-name?' in 'nftw'.", and "Compile fix for x86_64-MinGW." ready to push <janneke>i'll look into your remarks (thanks!) to push the other commits forward <wingo>perhaps you can hoodwink lloda into doing a gnulib update at the same revision, but adding the gethostname module :) <janneke>yw, and thanks for the hand-holding :-) <janneke>ah great -- i'll be checking if gethostname import fixes it <apteryx>I don't get what it doesn't like about the body, which *is* an expression, AFAICT. <wingo>is it an expression? looks like a definition <wingo>depends on the result of the expansion of define-configuration <wingo>anyway, i think that is probably a bug in the expander. <wingo>your code looked good to me fwiw. if you wanted to hack around it you could (syntax-parameterize ((...)) my-thing #t) <wingo>though i wonder if it would treat those as local definitions... humm <apteryx>the define-configuration called without the 'without-serialization item should expand to a (begin ...) that does a bunch of definitions <apteryx>I'll try your suggestion, thank you :-) <apteryx>it seems to get me passed this block! <apteryx>although the syntax-parameterized %with-serialization value doesn't seem to stick in the final syntax; https://paste.debian.net/1193369/; It still generates serializer fields set to some (inexistant) procedure names. <apteryx>anyway, I'll strip that 'without-serialization syntax sugar for now; it can at least work when using teh global plain parameter and a single case in define-configuration. Thanks for your help! <apteryx>it works as long as its used as a global variable more than a parameter ***DadeBonetti1 is now known as DadeBonetti
***jorts is now known as nckx
***cbaines_ is now known as cbaines
***mood_ is now known as mood