Re: SRFI-64 implementation for Guile 2.0

[Noah Lavine <noah.b.lavine@gmail.com>]

Hello!

I'm a bit confused by this conversation. Do you want to merge this
code into Guile, or into the reference implementation of SRFI 64?

If it's into Guile, I can't speak for the maintainers, but I think we
would love to have it. We do like supporting SRFIs.

Thanks,
Noah

On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Sunjoong Lee <sunjoong@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now, srfi-64.scm works on Guile 1.8 and 2.0.
>
> There are two different thins;
>   1) Guile 1.8 does not support nested block comments.
>      So, it does not pass srfi-64-test.scm test suite.
>      But, comments are comments - not problem.
>   2) srfi-64.scm on Guile 2.0 can catch and report the source form
>      like this;
>        source-file: "srfi-64-test.scm"
>        source-line: 129
>        source-form: (test-equal "1.1.1. Very simple" (quote (("a") ("b") ()
> () () (1 1 0 0 0))) (t))
>      srfi-64.scm on Guile 1.8 does not support it yet
>      because I'm a newbie of scheme and don't understand Guile yet.
>      I hope someone fix these problems;
>        a) On Guile 2.0, I used (datum->syntax form (syntax->datum form))
>        b) On Guile 2.0, I used (assq-ref (syntax-source form) 'filename)
>
> 2012/4/14 Sunjoong Lee <sunjoong@gmail.com>
>>
>> 2012/4/14 Per Bothner <per@bothner.com>
>>>
>>> This is nice.  It would be great if the Guile port would be merged
>>> into the reference implementation, presumably using cond-expand.
>>> That way bug-fixes or changes in one could be more easily be
>>> merged into the other.
>
>
> Now, srfi-64.scm works on Chicken 4.7.
>
> Per Bothner adviced me it's better to merge it into the reference
> implementation.
> I was not convinced to check right merge.
> So, I ported it for Chicken 4.7 and Guile 1.8 - it works now.
> Right merge? I'm not sure yet but hope so.
>