From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: (language tree-il compile-glil) question Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 23:06:39 +0200 Message-ID: References: <332120.3801.qm@web112308.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1272402354 10055 80.91.229.12 (27 Apr 2010 21:05:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 21:05:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: Jon Herron Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 27 23:05:46 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O6ryS-0008HU-KN for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 23:05:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45424 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O6ryS-0006mA-62 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:05:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1O6rxV-0005wi-Hf for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:04:45 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46314 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O6rxT-0005uh-Vn for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:04:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O6rxS-0000Kt-9D for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:04:43 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:37763 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O6rxS-0000Kk-78 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:04:42 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A51C3AEDE5; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:04:41 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=ln9L5wQoBggWBuw3Xmot7MNXQ5E=; b=oJ+8Dy Fz2BLtUm65fMLYBWjaqzHmkqX1zMLwQTBUllbbE1A0mzXo9qY9JwM+Wn2YuCnKmo iw/is+ymL+NgnT+RP5X4Q9w9BKVwynvzxJmvuaEPO4MTogWFD8IemUM7x5G/3sJ3 6AvYhlJgTYplvVqUkbDgqfmdgMZT6fP/bOqZQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=wSWxMp3kl1bxRzJmqI0k+UBY+AK9tVUm 6zq1YQ7A9+7hdu/6JjsXkUd4AvfdzXLqf1XdMnDQsY2xXlSdFOe6ibB4z3H7xC26 imw/t6gFoT5Y3VHGJCKCnii9QiyQ/UNtlvvl8xcDsB30LjTUQxUMH3qGF8uB2SCm uBMepwiFrsw= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90DE4AEDE4; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:04:40 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote (unknown [81.39.168.85]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EA06CAEDE3; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:04:38 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <332120.3801.qm@web112308.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> (Jon Herron's message of "Mon, 26 Apr 2010 22:40:15 -0700 (PDT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 7EF1E34C-5240-11DF-A95E-D033EE7EF46B-02397024!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:10305 Archived-At: On Tue 27 Apr 2010 07:40, Jon Herron writes: > In some late night hacking this evening/morn I came across a question > in (language tree-il compile-glil) - should line 126 read ((return . 1) > . return) instead of ((return . 1) return)? Indeed, it appears that way. I have fixed and pushed, thanks for the note! Return is a hack, though; I would rather express returns using prompt and abort, with some tree-il inliner logic to simplify some cases. But I was in a rush, so return is how it is. I'll be updating tree-il and vm docs to correspond to reality this weekend. Cheers, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/