IRC channel logs

2023-03-17.log

back to list of logs

<Aurora_v_kosmose>It's a tad unfortunate Guile has no save-image function.
<chrislck>sneek: botsnack
<chrislck>:(
<cow_2001>okay. there's guix install guile-picture-language ~_~
<cow_2001>the API is a bit different to the SICP API
<lloda>there is something off with the guile-cairo tests, they use installed modules not the ones in the build
<lloda>not sure how that works
<lloda>hmm nvm
<lloda>hmm not nvm. $(top_builddir)/env guile doesn't seem to be doing what it should
<lloda>hi daviid i pushed your patches to guile-cairo
<lloda>i renamed context->cairo-pointer to cairo-context->pointer bc all the other functions in guile-cairo begin with cairo-
<lloda>i haven't tagged yet, so lmk if there are any issues. I didn't fix the problem with make check working on the installed modules and not the built ones, but that problem has nothing to do with your patches so
<civodul>lloda: hi! did you see the optargs.test failures i mentioned a few days ago?
<daviid>lloda: thanks! i like you name better, i'll check later today and will let you know - i'll see if i can help with tha make check problem - i didn't propose a doc update because i was under the impression that dsmith did write it already, it'be nice to ping him maybe, but if needed i can propose the texi input ( i looked at the doc, i have no idea where it shoud go and how, it seems the entire doc is generated, and that there is no
<daviid>'space' for manually written exceprt)
<lloda>i haven't seen the optargs.test thing
<lloda>in guile-cairo there's a file where you write the bits that aren't in the original cairo iirc
<lloda>the doc is not very complete as it is tbh
<lloda>oh i see the errors now
<lloda>that's my case-lambda patch isn't it
<lloda>hmm :-/
<lloda>i see why the error happens
<lloda>nvm i don't really
<lloda>ok i have a patch. It's trivla so i'll just push it
<daviid>lloda: are these messages rlated to guile-cairo or guile?
<daviid>guile i guess
<lloda>which messages
<daviid>lloda: "... ok i have a patch. It's trivla so i'll just push it"
<daviid>lloda: if you happen to remember the file where we can write additional guila-cairo doc, let me know
<lloda>that's for optargs.test
<daviid>ah ok, sorry
<lloda>no worries. The doc is explained in doc/README. It mentions overrides.texi, so i guess that's it. But these functions you're adding aren't cairo functions, so perhaps that doesn't work. I'll check later
<lloda>maybe look for some other function that is also like that and where its doc is idk
<dsmith>daviid: Lame docs: https://paste.debian.net/1274440/
<dsmith>Probably needs to be in doc/overrides.texi
<dsmith>lloda: ^^
<lloda>👍
<dsmith>sneek! Where are you!
<dsmith>!uptime
<sneek>I've been running for one minute and 57 seconds
<sneek>This system has been up 2 minutes
<dsmith>sneek: botsnack
<sneek>:)
<dsmith>Aurora_v_kosmose: years ago guile used to have unexec
<dsmith>With address randomization, shared libs, JIT compiled code, is it even possible anymore?
<daviid>dsmith, lloda ok tx, i'll cook a patch and -> ml
<dsmith>daviid: Check and make sure the changed function names are correct
<daviid>should it be ... @deffn Function ... or ... @deffn Procedure ... ?
<hwpplayer1>I want to contribute to Guile with my coding skills How can I start for Guile's source code today ?
<dsmith>daviid: It returns a value, so...
<dsmith>daviid: All cairo-*-surface-create things in overrides.texi are also Function. Pretty sure it should be Funciton.
<daviid>dsmith: ok
<dsmith>hwpplayer1: Hmm. Maybe by attacking a bug?
<dsmith>sneek: bugs?
<sneek>Someone once said bugs is Send reports to bug-guile@gnu.org, and see bug reports at https://bugs.gnu.org/guile
<hwpplayer1>dsmith thanks I will do research for that
<dsmith>hwpplayer1: Take a look at https://bugs.gnu.org/guile and see if anything interests you
<hwpplayer1>Okay
<dsmith>Or maybe come up with a cool library that uses Guile that everyone wnats to have but is too lazy^wbusy to work on.
<hwpplayer1>Understood
<winter> http://paste.debian.net/hidden/0496afe4/
<winter>What's the point of the (let ((x* x)) here, wouldn't just referencing the plain x work fine? Can't think of any expansion funkiness that would interfere with the initial binding.
<lloda>x is a macro argument, it can be any expression, not just an identifier.