<daviid>lloda`: i just pulled, but I don't see your 'truncated-print for exceptions' patch in the git logs, so you did not push tht one yet? <daviid>lloda`: for info, the latest master, 93cbaef1345d1ba09c584bbeac6acd4580b23d73, does not get things better wrt f32vectors, here is an example that kills my emacs: <daviid>scheme@(guile-user)> (im-load "gnu.png") <daviid>$2 = (148 125 4 (#f32(0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 # …) …)) <daviid>scheme@(guile-user)> (error "blah!" $2) <daviid>tough ,bt on some code that raised an exception does work fine (I guess ,bt calls repl-print, just don't know much about this part of guile actually <daviid>here is such a ,bt [11 lines, please forgive me for the copy paste here!] <daviid>scheme@(guile-user)> (normalize-2 $2) <daviid><unnamed port>:141:19: <unnamed port>:141:19: In procedure module-lookup: Unbound variable: normalize-channel-21 <daviid>Entering a new prompt. Type `,bt' for a backtrace or `,q' to continue. <daviid> 592:17 1 (map1 (#f32(0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 …) …)) <daviid>lloda`: could you help to fix the (error "blah!" <a big f32vector...>? <Apteryx>Hello! Could someone recommend how I can form a list of elements using conditionals, without inserting #undefined or empty lists in the process? E.g., (cons* (if #f 2 '()) "another" '(3 4)) returns (() "another" 3 4) but what I want is ("another" 3 4). <Apteryx>I guess I could leave the #undefined values and then filter the list... but it doesn't seem very elegant. <Apteryx>Best I've found so far: leave the '() for the falsy conds, and then use: (remove null? (list (if #f 2 '()) "another" 3 4)) <spk121>Apteryx: what about something like (append (if #f '(1) '()) '(2 3 4)) <wingo>garrr, found some threadsafe ports problems <wingo>i am fine moving more things to scheme but i don't think making a new publically exposed function is a good idea <wingo>unless it's designed and supported anyway. there are ways to expose c to scheme in ways that don't increase our api surface area <wingo>and there are ways to just make c call out to scheme <wingo>i think it's reasonable to move the array printer to scheme fwiw, via a new (ice-9 arrays) module or something. having a specific arrays module would also allow you to load-extension within the modules to load whatever helpers you need <lloda`>yeah, I agree that more public functions isn't the best idea. I'll see how to move the array printer to Scheme then and call it from C then. <lloda`>sneek: later tell daviid truncated-print already handled bytevectors before, the patches fix other stuff. <lloda`>sneek: later tell daviid the exception printers don't use repl-print, you need to patch boot-9.scm to give you a way to replace format. <lloda`>sneek: later tell daviid let me know if it doesn't work ***darthlukan_ is now known as darthlukan
***Fuuzetsu_ is now known as Fuuzetsu
***micro`_ is now known as micro_
<wingo>ACTION has nice guile and fibers bugfixes coming <sneek>daviid, you have 5 messages. <sneek>daviid, lloda` says: truncated-print already handled bytevectors before, the patches fix other stuff. <sneek>daviid, lloda` says: the exception printers don't use repl-print, you need to patch boot-9.scm to give you a way to replace format. <sneek>daviid, lloda` says: let me know if it doesn't work <daviid>lloda`: ok thanks! will look at this and try... <ruste>Not sure if there's a better channel for this, but I have a question about CPS conversion. <ruste>In particular, CPS conversion of lambda forms in an intermediate language with functions of one argument. <ruste>So here's the deal. I want to cps convert something of the form (lambda (var) body). <ruste>A lambda term with one variable. <ruste>For example I'll use (lambda (x) x) <ruste>Traditionally (cps '(lambda (x) x)) -> '(lambda (k x) (k x)) <ruste>Which is fine, but my intermediary language only has lambda terms with one variable. <ruste>My instinct is to curry this and I get something like (cps '(lambda (x) x)) -> '(lambda (k) (lambda (x) (k x))) <ruste>The problem is that this statement has a function return which is kind of what I'm trying to avoid. <ruste>I can deal with it, it just feels wrong. <ruste>What's the right way to do this? <janneke>i changed mes's scheme interpreter into CPS two months ago <janneke>i'm not using an intermediate language and would like to learn more about that <ruste>janneke, I'm trying to write a scheme->lua compiler for kicks. <ruste>I started in the middle with a language containing only lambda, set!, if, and quote. <ruste>Hopefully easy to reason about. <ruste>mes looks ambitious. r6rs is a big standard. I'm only aiming for r7rs. <janneke>ruste: thanks...i should reword the r6rs bit, being complete/complient is not at all a target for mes <ruste>Did you write your own garbage collector? <janneke>i'm only stating that because of some specific r6rs-like bits such as syntax-case that are currently mandatory <janneke>ruste: yes, a variant on SICP's stop-and-copy <ruste>That's something I'm avoiding by compiling to lua that simultaneously intrigues and terrifies me. <janneke>ruste: it's about 80 lines of C, fairly trivial but also not too performant -- not <ruste>I never get passed the "here's how to program in scheme bit," because I get bored. <janneke>:-) i only dared to look at GC when i really had to <ruste>janneke, I'm doing everything I can not to have to. <janneke>my C compiler in schee was CONSing in 5min through all my 16gigs...