IRC channel logs


back to list of logs

<djcb>How can I get the equivalent of `merge-generics` with `use-modules' rather than `define-module'?
***chrislck1 is now known as chrislck
<janneke>mwette: hi!
<mwette>janneke: hi - working on debugging dbug+epoll w/ ffi-helper today
<janneke>mwette: you prolly saw my mail...sadly reverted to an older nyacc for now
<janneke>i'll be working on my tracing patch though
<janneke>and very good news: mes+nyacc succeeded in building tinycc for the first time
<janneke>Guile+Nyacc+MesCC could compile tcc since october last year
<janneke>but now also Mes+Nyacc+MesCC can do so...which means we almost have full source bootstrapping for tcc
<ArneBab_>janneke: wow — nice!
<janneke>ArneBab_: thanks...many kudos go to mwette, OriansJ and rain1
<janneke>(see #bootstrapping/#guix)
<mwette>writing C code in Scheme can sometimes be a challenge, but I am starting to gt epoll+dbus mainloop running. all APIs autocoded with the ffi-helper
<mwette>janneke: So it looks like the cond-expand updates just disable all the (guile) options: Can I remove the (guile) condition and the compat18 module?
<janneke>mwette: not sure what you mean...
<janneke>the cond-expands have guile-2 and guile (for guile-1.8)
<janneke>guile-1.8 does not fully work (yet)
<janneke>but i'm Nyacc on guile-2.2 and cond-expand needs either an (else on a (mes clause
<janneke>if we decide to drop guile-1.8 for now, all cond-expands can be removed
<mwette>janneke: I will just add the cond patches as you proposed.
<mwette>janneke: I want to look more at the debugging hooks.
<janneke>mwette: thanks!
<mwette>janneke: OK if I use `(else)' instead of '(mes)' ?
<janneke>mwette: sure!
<janneke>i'll let you know if/when mes needs something special
<janneke>but i'm striving for next to 100% guile compatibility
<janneke>that won't work for cond-expand though, as i need to distinguish between guile and mes
<mwette>so I changed to `(cond-expand (mes) (guile-2 ...) (guile ...) (else))'
<daviid>amz3: it would be nice to see guile-git here:
<ArneBab_>I added some colors to with-guise-and-guile:
<daviid>ArneBab_: nice
<daviid>ArneBab_: I would use more width though
<ArneBab_>wouldn’t that make it harder to read?
<daviid>ArneBab_: I think it is always better to let users decide, for example when I wan't to read your site, I open a new page (epiphany) and set it height and width to what I like, and expect the content to follow ...
<daviid>but hey, not important really
<ArneBab_>daviid: I used to think that, but at some point I changed to thinking that providing the best defaults I can helps users more.
<daviid>ArneBab_: sorry, that can never be true :)
<ArneBab_>(at some point ~ some time in the past 15 years )
<daviid>ArneBab_: in philosophy, that would be called 'the omni potent syndrome', you are thinking you know better then individuals, upon what individuals want ... that is heresy :):)
<ArneBab_>I think I know well enough that my default values are better than forcing everyone to choose — for the thing I built. Always depends on who knows how much.
<galex-713>daviid: ArneBab_: my thinking is to provide minimal decent default, yet to be sure to have a website browsable without CSS at all, or with a decent default CSS
<ArneBab_>sounds goood
<galex-713>that is, just providing as CSS what you would expect from a decent default css, and let it be minimal
<galex-713>like, only centering text and doing max-width: 66em
<galex-713>or stuff like that
<galex-713>have a correct contrast level (usually I take the colors from bootstrap)
<ArneBab_>I *want* it to be beautiful, and I wish text in browsers were beautiful by default.
<ArneBab_>the user knows his or her peculiarities, you know the peculiarities of what you created. Ideal would be something which can merge both.
<galex-713>daviid: it’s not fully denued of sense
<galex-713>it’s real that it is sometimes difficult to know what yourself want, if you’re not educated into what the different options are, which does what, why you would be inclined to prefer something to something else, etc.
<galex-713>also the paralysis of choice can be a problem sometimes, and make more problem than to solve
<galex-713>and having a default, at least as a standard, helps a lot, normally
<galex-713>a lot of software would be considered unusable, or not “user-friendly” if some default weren’t choosen upon users
<galex-713>because it’s still a work and even sometimes a pain to have to redescribe each time for each software the default optimal behavior you’d like to expect
<spk121>nah. In all things you do for free in your spare time, please yourself above all. But, if writing some that is user friendly or conforms to other's expectations entertains *you*, then do it.
<galex-713>what entertain me is doing useful stuff, if it’s not used it’s less useful, then bugs are not reported, comments are not done, things are not improved, etc.
<galex-713>but yes, self-entertainment and self-pleasure should be at the center you’re right
<galex-713>but standards and diversity should be kept in mind
<galex-713>that’s why layers of abstractions exist