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: upcoming patches Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:17:06 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87aazo74zd.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87tyxvks72.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1255987122 25839 80.91.229.12 (19 Oct 2009 21:18:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:18:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Mark H. Weaver" , guile-devel To: Neil Jerram Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 19 23:18:32 2009 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 4.50) id 1Mzzcb-0001Q4-6o for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:18:29 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36805 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mzzca-0003wD-Ci for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:18:28 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mzzb1-0002yz-Ru for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:16:51 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mzzax-0002tY-5R for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:16:51 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52424 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mzzaw-0002tA-Rz for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:16:46 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:63371 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Mzzaw-00053N-Lj for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:16:46 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB2677E045; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:16:45 -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=hrjQkzzE8ZbyUvuLazh+A56BTpY=; b=OhWWJV j8v8uraKAmLSqbBF9jwpq58lMtPi+ruJ6x+0P6dk3R4nef6zbwut9B+U8cu136AT 791SFsVflEz7R4ZszEr0GGSXftsmuP3MR4sV+TW5U0TgBWDaOce/m2RYmF1HTbKU CBhuG0HP/IBz9xGGHU8m+B5XSEeXYx5yTC74Y= 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=V1ND41aUhElVXg+xChqQbdZGazKRkBan Pk7YWy/+xLvZlQaVuIv931kXQedWGnKIBssf96+0CVjYQNGIvzjhNMpph+q2DlFk g7K5tR4AXg58J6NwTXc6WUHPTUmNpM62MiBqQxsqeppAV/M7ML+l9932NV6wcsqa n5tDMPp8JkU= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFDAC7E043; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:16:43 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote (unknown [83.34.240.150]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6280A7E03A; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:16:39 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87tyxvks72.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> (Neil Jerram's message of "Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:08:17 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B38CEDE0-BCF4-11DE-9690-A67CBBB5EC2E-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.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:9529 Archived-At: On Mon 19 Oct 2009 23:08, Neil Jerram writes: > Andy Wingo writes: > >> Oh no, I haven't seen a new one either. I was just going to take a look >> at the old one again and see how much work it needed -- because it's not >> fair to Daniel to keep his work in limbo, IMO. > > True - but I thought Mark's patch was an orthogonal optimisation, and > hence that Daniel's work shouldn't depend on it. Is that wrong? You're probably right, I'll see about getting Daniel's work in regardless. Ciao, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/