<apteryx_>vijaymarupudi: about redirecting both standard output & error, I just chained the with-output-to-port & with-error-to-port. Ugly, but does the job. <muradm>currently i use (execl prog1 ...) in my script, what would be the way to do the same but with stderr and stdout redirected to /dev/null? <muradm>i look at popen, but it is not same as execl <vijaymarupudi>muradm: I would open /dev/null as an output file port, and use dup2 to replace the 1 and 2 file descriptors with the file description from /dev/null <muradm>vijaymarupudi: before (execl ...) ? ***apteryx_ is now known as apteryx
<muradm>there is a type however dev-null should be dev-null-out <muradm>no (open-output-file ...) does not return fd <apteryx>you want old to be the fd of /dev/null <apteryx>so that it copies its fdes into that of fdes 1 <apteryx>so [...] (dup2 (port->fdes dev-null-out) 1) (dup2 1 2) (execl [...]) <flatwhatson>i've hacked together a working package & service definition for LXD <vijaymarupudi>Q: Is there a way for me to fully expand the input to a syntax-case macro before I operate on it? <RhodiumToad>I think you'd want to think hard about why you think you want to do that <vijaymarupudi>macroexpand seems to become either tree-il or just a datum, while ideally I would like a syntax object <vijaymarupudi>RhodiumToad: I want to make a macro that is user expandable, i.e. they can create their own macros that expand into the primitives accepted by my macro <RhodiumToad>can you give an example of the kind of usage you want to allow? <RhodiumToad>I believe there's no seperable part of guile to expand to a syntax object <vijaymarupudi>This is kind of an artificial example, my actual use case is to create a cognitive model that I can describe using such macros