From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Christopher Lemmer Webber Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Summer of Code Recap Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 11:19:41 -0400 Message-ID: <87bl9hjo1e.fsf@dustycloud.org> References: <87a6p1l47j.fsf@dustycloud.org> <87r1idjokk.fsf@dustycloud.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="7530"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: mu4e 1.4.15; emacs 27.2 Cc: guile-user@gnu.org To: Ian Price Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue May 11 17:21:02 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lgUBx-0001iq-O0 for guile-user@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 11 May 2021 17:21:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53016 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lgUBw-0001tX-NP for guile-user@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 11 May 2021 11:21:00 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58146) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lgUAn-0000No-U0 for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 11 May 2021 11:19:49 -0400 Original-Received: from dustycloud.org ([50.116.34.160]:33778) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lgUAi-0001WN-DW for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 11 May 2021 11:19:49 -0400 Original-Received: from twig (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dustycloud.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9353326679; Tue, 11 May 2021 11:19:41 -0400 (EDT) In-reply-to: <87r1idjokk.fsf@dustycloud.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=50.116.34.160; envelope-from=cwebber@dustycloud.org; helo=dustycloud.org X-Spam_score_int: -17 X-Spam_score: -1.8 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_SBL_A=0.1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "guile-user" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.lisp.guile.user:17529 Archived-At: I suspect what changed most of all is in commit 4311dc9858ba7c6db50a851e95fc7c387b9381b2 Right now in compile-js.scm it does: (define lower-cps (@@ (language cps optimize) lower-cps)) (define (compile-js exp env opts) ;; TODO: I should special case the compilation for the initial fun, ;; as this is the entry point for the program, and shouldn't get a ;; "self" argument, for now, I add "undefined" as the first ;; argument in the call to it. ;; see compile-exp in (language js-il compile-javascript) (define (intmap->program map) (intmap-fold-right (lambda (kfun body accum) (acons (make-kid kfun) (compile-fun (intmap-select map body) kfun) accum)) (compute-reachable-functions map 0) '())) (values (make-program (intmap->program (lower-cps exp opts))) env env)) That last line, with the lower-cps... well, it looks like assumptions have changed. Based on reading the commit history, it looks like this step is now done *before* handing it over to compile-bytecode/compile-js. So my guess would be something like: diff --git a/module/language/cps/compile-js.scm b/module/language/cps/compile-js.scm index 128f5d64d..3c95c105f 100644 --- a/module/language/cps/compile-js.scm +++ b/module/language/cps/compile-js.scm @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ accum)) (compute-reachable-functions map 0) '())) - (values (make-program (intmap->program (lower-cps exp opts))) env env)) + (values (make-program (intmap->program exp)) env env)) This does not work, however. Not sure why, or what really should be done... Christopher Lemmer Webber writes: > I've now verified that the place where things fall apart is fairly > simple. The following file does not compile: > > (define (add x y) > (+ x y)) > > (add 1 2) > > So yeah, it's just functions in general. > > It looks like the stage where things are breaking is between the > cps -> js-il representations. > > I figured since probably the changes need to happen in > module/language/cps/compile-js.scm, I should look at > the commit log in compile-bytecode.scm in that same directory. > It looks like a lot has changed since 2017! > > I suspect I need help at this stage! :) > > > Christopher Lemmer Webber writes: > >> Hi! >> >> Ian did some great work here in the past... let's not let it go to >> waste. Let's try to merge it! >> >> I've made a branch in my gitlab repo here: >> >> https://gitlab.com/dustyweb/guile.git >> >> the branch is "compile-to-js-merge" >> >> I've dealt with the merge conflicts and etc I've been able to identify, >> but things have already started to bitrot... I'd like to prevent them >> from bitrotting further. I fixed some things, updating the code to >> where it appears things have shuffled around to as best as I could. >> >> Currently I can get a file as simple as "just-plus.scm" to compile: >> >> (+ 1 2) >> >> This outputs to: >> >> function (unit_cont){var k_0 = function (v_0,k_4){var k_1 = function (v_0){var v_1 = 3;return k_4(v_1);};if ((arguments["length"])==(2)) {{return k_1(v_0);}} else {{return undefined;}}};return k_0(undefined,unit_cont);}; >> >> Progress! >> >> However, the amb.scm file no longer works as described below. I get the >> following: >> >> In language/cps/intset.scm: >> 472:6 3 (visit-branch #(4294967295 1073741823 #f #f #f #f #f #f (#f)) _ 0 # #) >> 472:6 2 (visit-branch 4294967295 _ 0 _ _) >> In language/cps/split-rec.scm: >> 78:22 1 (_ _ _ _) >> In ice-9/boot-9.scm: >> 1685:16 0 (raise-exception _ #:continuable? _) >> >> ice-9/boot-9.scm:1685:16: In procedure raise-exception: >> Throw to key `match-error' with args `("match" "no matching pattern" #)'. >> >> I guess that's something that probably changed. I'm going to look into >> it... >> >> Anyway, is there support from the maintainers from getting this merged >> if I can get things working again? I'd really like to see this effort >> not go to waste... I'd even like to write a few demos using it. >> >> >> Ian Price writes: >> >>> 1 Introduction >>> ============== >>> >>> As many of you are aware, I have been working on compiling Guile >>> Scheme to JavaScript this summer, as part of the Google Summer of >>> Code. This post serves to bookend my work for the year. >>> >>> Before I go any further, I have to give my thanks to my mentor [Chris >>> Webber], without whom this project would have fizzled out weeks ago; >>> Google and the Gnu Project, naturally, for providing the Summer of >>> Code and allowing me to work on this project; and our fearless leader, >>> [Andy Wingo], for answering a wide variety of stupid questions. >>> >>> >>> [Chris Webber] https://dustycloud.org/ >>> >>> [Andy Wingo] https://wingolog.org/ >>> >>> >>> 2 Project Aims >>> ============== >>> >>> For a full introduction to the project, you can of course refer back >>> to my [project proposal], but very briefly my hopes for this summer >>> were: >>> >>> 1. To rewrite the previous version of my compiler from the [previous >>> CPS representation] to use the new representation ["CPS Soup"] >>> representation. >>> 2. To completely port ice-9/boot-9.scm (our basic "prelude") to >>> JavaScript, and in particular, to support the [Guile Module >>> system]. >>> 3. To handle Proper Tail Calls by use of the [Cheney on the MTA] >>> strategy. >>> 4. To include a new `guild' script for bundling compiled JS files with >>> their dependencies. >>> >>> >>> [project proposal] https://shift-reset.com/static/docs/gsoc-2017.pdf >>> >>> [previous CPS representation] >>> https://wingolog.org/archives/2014/01/12/a-continuation-passing-style-intermediate-language-for-guile >>> >>> ["CPS Soup"] https://wingolog.org/archives/2015/07/27/cps-soup >>> >>> [Guile Module system] >>> https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Modules.html#Modules >>> >>> [Cheney on the MTA] http://www.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/CheneyMTA.html >>> >>> >>> 3 What was Achieved >>> =================== >>> >>> You can find all of my work on the [compile-to-js-2017] branch of my >>> Gitlab. A full list of the commits can be found [here], but I will >>> summarise the changes now: >>> >>> >>> [compile-to-js-2017] >>> https://gitlab.com/ijp/guile/tree/compile-to-js-2017 >>> >>> [here] https://gitlab.com/ijp/guile/compare/1b36a76e...gsoc-2017-end >>> >>> 3.1 Compile Guile CPS Soup to JavaScript >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> When I was working on my initial attempt at compiling Guile to >>> JavaScript, two years ago, Guile used a different CPS representation >>> as its intermediate language. The initial experiments with the CPS >>> Soup representation occurred while that work was ongoing, but as it >>> was not considered "stable", the plan was not to move to this >>> representation until after I had completed my other objectives. >>> >>> Now, however, CPS Soup is the IL of Guile, and so the first task that >>> was accomplished was to move to this representation. Since I had >>> already created my own JS-IL as a target, I did not need to make any >>> changes to the code generation side from JS-IL to JavaScript proper. >>> The main change was to reconstruct the nested scope structure that was >>> implicit in the dominator structure that Guile made available. >>> >>> The full code for the compiler is split into several sections, >>> corresponding to different stages in the compiler pipeline. >>> >>> >>> 3.1.1 CPS to JS-IL Compiler >>> --------------------------- >>> >>> - module/language/cps/compile-js.scm >>> - module/language/cps/spec.scm >>> >>> These modules constitute the compiler from CPS to my JS-IL >>> intermediate language. >>> >>> >>> 3.1.2 JS-IL to JavaScript Compiler >>> ---------------------------------- >>> >>> - module/language/js-il.scm >>> - module/language/js-il/compile-javascript.scm >>> - module/language/js-il/inlining.scm >>> - module/language/js-il/spec.scm >>> >>> These modules constitute a somewhat ad-hoc intermediate representation >>> as a target for the CPS compiler. It differs from JavaScript, e.g., by >>> continuing to separate continuations and functions, and a slightly >>> specialised function representation to handle Guile's complicated >>> notion of procedure arity. >>> >>> >>> 3.1.3 JavaScript Representation >>> ------------------------------- >>> >>> - module/language/javascript.scm >>> - module/language/javascript/simplify.scm >>> - module/language/javascript/spec.scm >>> >>> This is primarily the representation of JavaScript as Scheme Records. >>> This is separate from the representation of JavaScript Guile already >>> has in the form of `(language ecmascript)' primarily to avoid a >>> circularity when Guile determines which compilers to run in the >>> pipeline, as recommended by Andy Wingo. >>> >>> >>> 3.2 A pre-amble capable of running through boot-9 >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> In order to run Guile, it is not enough to be able to compile Scheme >>> (or indeed any other language supported by Guile) forms to JavaScript, >>> we also need to incorporate as much of Guile's runtime as possible. >>> This involves implementing VM primitives (such as you might see in >>> vm-engine.c); basic Guile types like Symbols, Pairs, and Structs; as >>> well as many of the functions that Guile implements in C rather than >>> Scheme. >>> >>> Although I certainly did not implement all of the functionality Guile >>> achieves, I was able to implement sufficiently many (including what >>> amounts to a port of much of module.c) that one can successfully run >>> though ice-9/boot-9.scm from start to finish. >>> >>> This took up the bulk of the time I spent on this project, due to the >>> size of the compiled output of boot-9.scm, and my own difficulties >>> debugging the bootstrap process. More on this below. >>> >>> The code can be found at >>> - module/language/js-il/runtime.js >>> >>> >>> 3.3 A linking script for JavaScript >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> Since we are using the `(language ...)' infrastructure, we can take >>> advantage of the existing `guild compile' script for compiling to >>> JavaScript, we simply need to use the `--to' switch. However, this >>> does not produce a file which you can just load up without any >>> additional work, especially if you are working with multiple modules. >>> >>> In order to make it easier to deal with this, I have included a `guild >>> jslink' script, which can be used to package up a "main" script along >>> with the `runtime.js' and its dependencies. See below for an example. >>> >>> The code can be found at >>> - module/scripts/jslink.scm >>> >>> >>> 4 What was not Achieved >>> ======================= >>> >>> 4.1 Cheney on the MTA >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> One of my regrets is that I did not implement Baker's "Cheney on the >>> MTA" (as seen in [Chicken Scheme]) for handling Proper Tail Calls in >>> JavaScript. Historically, JavaScript has not guaranteed that tail >>> position function calls do not grow the stack, and this is obviously >>> of fundamental importance for languages like Scheme. Fortunately, ES6 >>> has added support for [proper tail calls] and we can expect to see >>> increased support for it in future JavaScript versions. (Indeed, >>> during testing on node v.6.10.3, I did not have to increase the stack >>> size until very late). >>> >>> >>> [Chicken Scheme] https://www.call-cc.org/ >>> >>> [proper tail calls] >>> https://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6.0/#sec-tail-position-calls >>> >>> >>> 5 How to use it >>> =============== >>> >>> I've talked a lot about what I've did and didn't do, but what about >>> actually using this thing? >>> >>> >>> 5.1 Obtaining the Code >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> The code is not currently available from the main Guile repository, >>> but only the `compile-to-js-2017' branch on my [GitLab]. >>> >>> If you already have a checkout of guile, you can add my repo as a >>> remote with >>> ,---- >>> | $ git remote add ijp https://gitlab.com/ijp/guile.git >>> `---- >>> and fetch the branch with >>> ,---- >>> | $ git fetch ijp >>> `---- >>> >>> You can then check out the `compile-to-js-2017' branch and build as >>> normal. >>> >>> >>> [GitLab] https://gitlab.com/ijp/guile/tree/compile-to-js-2017 >>> >>> >>> 5.2 A Non-Trivial Example >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> As an example of how to use the JS Backend that is short, but >>> non-trivial, I am using John McCarthy's `amb' operator (see [A Basis >>> for a Mathematical Theory of Computation]) to search for Pythagorean >>> Triples. >>> >>> First we have a module for the `amb' operator in amb.scm >>> ,---- >>> | (define-module (amb) >>> | #:export (amb fail)) >>> | >>> | (define original-fail >>> | (lambda _ >>> | (error 'amb "No more paths to search"))) >>> | >>> | (define *amb-fail* original-fail) >>> | >>> | (define (fail) >>> | (*amb-fail* #f)) >>> | >>> | (define (amb-thunks . values) >>> | (let ((failure *amb-fail*)) >>> | (call/cc (lambda (escape) >>> | (for-each (lambda (value) >>> | (call/cc (lambda (continue) >>> | (set! *amb-fail* continue) >>> | (escape (value))))) >>> | values) >>> | (failure #f))))) >>> | >>> | (define-syntax amb >>> | (syntax-rules () >>> | ((amb exprs ...) >>> | (amb-thunks (lambda () exprs) ...)))) >>> `---- >>> >>> Next we have the code performs the search in triple.scm >>> ,---- >>> | (use-modules (amb)) >>> | >>> | (let ((a (amb 4 5 6 7 8 9 10)) >>> | (b (amb 4 5 6 7 8 9 10)) >>> | (c (amb 4 5 6 7 8 9 10))) >>> | (if (= (* c c) (+ (* a a) (* b b))) >>> | (list a b c) >>> | (fail))) >>> `---- >>> >>> We compile the files in the usual manner, only now we specify the >>> `javascript' language (We make sure to add the current directory to >>> the load-path for triple.scm). >>> >>> ,---- >>> | $ guild compile amb.scm --to=javascript --output=amb.js >>> | $ guild compile -L . triple.scm --to=javascript --output=triple.js >>> `---- >>> >>> Next we link the two together into a file main.js, making sure to >>> specify amb.js as a dependency of triple.js. (This step will take a >>> little while, since it also compiles a bunch of dependencies) >>> >>> ,---- >>> | $ guild jslink triple.js -o main.js --depends="(\"amb\" . \"amb.scm\")" >>> `---- >>> >>> Finally, you can run it with `node', although as mentioned above you >>> may have to increase the stack size. >>> >>> ,---- >>> | $ node --stack-size=2000 main.js >>> `---- >>> >>> Which should, fingers crossed, print out the triple 6,8,10. >>> >>> >>> [A Basis for a Mathematical Theory of Computation] >>> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/basis1.pdf >>> >>> >>> 6 What is next? >>> =============== >>> >>> Having recapped what was and what was not achieved, the next question >>> is: where does the project go from here? I have been asked about my >>> plans for all sorts of features, e.g. support for [Web Assembly], but >>> I think the following things are the most important to think about. >>> >>> >>> [Web Assembly] http://webassembly.org/ >>> >>> 6.1 Inclusion into Guile >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> The entire point of the project is to have something that can be >>> included in Guile proper. I have not spoken with Guile's maintainers >>> about incorporation into the main distribution, but I expect there >>> would be not be too many problems with moving the "official branch" to >>> the main repository. >>> >>> >>> 6.2 All Guile built-ins in runtime.js >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> Although I have included enough to get though boot-9.scm, this does >>> not include all of the built-ins we would want in our programs. Two >>> things I use very often which do not appear in runtime.js are ports >>> and bytevectors. >>> >>> We would like most, if not all, Guile built-ins to be available for >>> those who need them, so these will need to be implemented. However, >>> this is a lot of extra code for some people who don't need it, which >>> brings us to a different issue... >>> >>> >>> 6.3 Linking Guile Modules & Features >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> In [a blog post], Andy Wingo lays out many tasks that he would like to >>> see in a future Guile. One of the most important of these, for us, are >>> under the headings "linking multiple modules together" and "linking a >>> single executable". To grossly simplify, we want to be able to link >>> various files into one single executable, which contains all and only >>> the code we need for our application. >>> >>> As it stands, I included a simple script `guild jslink' that bundles >>> various compiled JavaScript files into one file, but we would like it >>> to be much more featureful: removing modules, functions, even types we >>> don't need; and inferring which modules are required by our >>> application and bundling them without requiring the information >>> `jslink' does. This would allow us to minimise the amount of code that >>> needs to be sent over the network, which is very important to web >>> developers. >>> >>> This is a large task, and one I don't know enough about at the moment >>> to attempt, but it is work that would benefit not just our JavaScript >>> compiler, but people who want to deploy regular Guile applications. >>> >>> >>> [a blog post] >>> https://wingolog.org/archives/2016/02/04/guile-compiler-tasks >>> >>> >>> 6.4 JavaScript Version >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> I am not an expert in JavaScript, in fact, before this summer I >>> probably hadn't written it for two years, which means the code >>> certainly does not match up with the current best practices and >>> specifications. Further, all of my testing for this compiler was done >>> on [Node.js] v.6.10.3 only (this was the version available in the >>> Fedora 25 repositories). >>> >>> The code should be vetted to determine precisely which modern JS >>> features are used (I believe proper tail calls, and ES6 Maps are the >>> main ones), and it should be tested on all major browsers. If >>> necessary, we should incorporate switches in the compiler to allow JS >>> users to compile for particular implementations, taking advantage of >>> particular modern JS features, or providing our own implementations of >>> those that are not supported (e.g. Cheney on the MTA). >>> >>> >>> [Node.js] https://nodejs.org/en/ >>> >>> >>> 6.5 JS Integration >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> One of the strengths of Guile is that it allows people to integrate >>> their Scheme and C code, and although it has not been a focus for this >>> summer, we should aim to provide similar levels of integration between >>> Scheme and JS. There are two cases to consider. >>> >>> >>> 6.5.1 JS calling Scheme >>> ----------------------- >>> >>> As it stands, you can perform some limited interaction from JavaScript >>> in a similar manner to how you would interact with Guile from C. For >>> instance, by using `scm_current_module', `scm_public_lookup', and the >>> `scheme.Symbol' constructor, one could look up a scheme function, e.g. >>> `iota', and then invoke it by `scheme.call'. >>> >>> That said, C idioms are not JS idioms, and so we should work to >>> provide a much nicer API through the `scheme' object. >>> >>> >>> 6.5.2 Scheme calling JS >>> ----------------------- >>> >>> In the case of Scheme calling JavaScript, I think we should follow the >>> example of `(system foreign)', which provides an API for linking to >>> dynamic C libraries, and creating Scheme versions of C functions, and >>> automatically marshalling/unmarshalling C types to Scheme types. One >>> additional complication we would have with JS would be the presence of >>> exceptions, but I think these could also be marshalled into Scheme >>> ones without much trouble. >>> >>> >>> 7 Lessons Learned >>> ================= >>> >>> It goes without saying that a project like this teaches you a lot >>> about the technical design of Guile, how to navigate the codebase, >>> etc, but I want to highlight a few "softer" lessons from this summer. >>> >>> >>> 7.1 Compilers are "Easy", Runtimes are Hard >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> When I first set out to write this project two summers ago, I >>> naturally assumed that the majority of the effort would go into the >>> compiler, and much less into the built-ins. In reality, the effort was >>> reversed. Partly this was due to my experience in writing Scheme, and >>> Functional Programming more generally, meant that the tree-traversing >>> code typical of a compiler pass was relatively straightforward, and >>> the compiler was not doing a lot of optimisation, mostly code >>> generation. >>> >>> >>> 7.2 Bootstrapping is Hard >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> The last point leads into this one, bootstrapping is pretty tricky. >>> With boot-9, you have several versions of the module system at >>> different times. My own attempt to write module code that handled this >>> ended up being abandoned for a rewrite that more closely followed the >>> Guile C code. The size of the compiled boot-9 code, and the, at times, >>> non-local consequences of implementing certain built-ins made it >>> tricky to debug. >>> >>> >>> 7.3 Don't Panic >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> This is a much more personal one, and one that I think is very >>> important for anyone who wants to take part in a program like the >>> Summer of Code, where you are spending a lot of time mostly on your >>> own. In a complex software project, things are not always going to go >>> smoothly. You might spend weeks banging up against a difficult >>> problem. Don't Panic! If it was easy it would have already been done. >>> Keep in Contact with your Mentor! It is tempting to only check in when >>> you think you have something of progress to report, but they are there >>> to help you, and explaining your issues to someone else is often very >>> useful when trying to overcome them, even if they don't have an answer >>> for you. >>> >>> >>> 8 Wrapping Up >>> ============= >>> >>> If you are still with me, good on you. As the new semester is starting >>> I will be devoting much less time to this, and that will likely be >>> true till December, but I will make an effort to keep up with >>> guile-user and be on the IRC Channel to help the daring souls who want >>> to give this a go. My priorities will be documenting the ILs, filling >>> in missing builtins, and improving jslink. I especially want to see >>> basic IO and MiniKanren up and running, and for it to be convenient to >>> use Guile's builtin libraries. >>> >>> >>> Happy Hacking, Ian Price >>> >>> (This is a crosspost to guile-user of my blogpost [Summer of Code >>> Recap], but please comment on this list, rather than there) >>> >>> [Summer of Code Recap] >>> https://shift-reset.com/blog/2017/8/28/Summer%20of%20Code%20Recap/