IRC channel logs
2025-10-25.log
back to list of logs
<dpk>what’s the deal with that? <identity>dpk: fx+ is defined as something like (define (fx+ . ls) (assert (every fixnum? ls)) (apply + ls)), same with other fixnum procedures <identity>guile can optimize out (+ 2 2) but not (fx+ 2 2) <identity>really (define (fx+ fx1 fx2) (assert-fixnum fx1 fx2) (let ((r (+ fx1 fx2))) (or (inline-fixnum? r) (raise (make-implementation-restriction-violation))) r)), it seems the optimizer can not handle that for some reason <dpk>none of the magic needed-bits optimization for fixnums? :-( <kestrelwx>rgherdt: Hi! I'll take a bit to go through the spec, I was making best efforts to avoid reading it :D. <rgherdt>kestrelwx: Nice! I'm actually not really familiar with it either, I just wrote the parser but never used the results. Are you planning to generate WebGL2 bindings for hoot? <rgherdt>I'll take a look at the new bug you reported, thanks <rgherdt>which files are you using as inputs? <rgherdt>I'll try to go through the spec too and improve test coverage <kestrelwx>Yes, I want to make bindings for the upcoming jam. <rgherdt>thx. I gave it a shot, no errors, but the resulting model might still be incomplete <rgherdt>I noticed there are still incomplete parts in tree->model regarding constant values, will try to fix it <apteryx>how would I write a string at some offset in a bytevector ? <apteryx>do I need to transform the string to utf8 codes, then write them one by one with bytevector-s8-set! in a loop? <kestrelwx>rgherdt: For `const type num = 0;` I only get "type" now. <rgherdt>yes, thx. I noticed that for non-attribute and non-operation members the conversion is incomplete. I'm figuring out how I should model that <rgherdt>originally I started that parse-to-model stuff only to showcase how one could traverse the parse tree, but perhaps we can complete it. If you show the parse tree all the elements are there <rgherdt>besides <operation> and <attribute> we need more data structures to model interface members, I'm trying to figure out from the spec and webidl.js what would make more sense <kestrelwx>I thought I'd need to traverse the tree myself, but then I figured, since the model is already there what sense is there to write one again? <rgherdt>kestrelwx: yes, that makes sense. It's just not complete yet, and can definitely be improved. <rgherdt>kestrelwx: pushed a fix, now we have a <constant> type for interface/mixin members <rgherdt>you're welcome. Thx for testing and reporting.