Re: First cut at "curly-write" and "neoteric-write" with -shared and -cyclic versions

Show/hide message thread

Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"? David A. Wheeler (09 Apr 2013 21:56 UTC)

Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"? Mark H Weaver (09 Apr 2013 23:35 UTC)

Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"? David A. Wheeler (10 Apr 2013 00:14 UTC)

Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"? David A. Wheeler (10 Apr 2013 00:24 UTC)

Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"? David A. Wheeler (10 Apr 2013 04:11 UTC)

Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"? John Cowan (10 Apr 2013 01:56 UTC)

Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"? David A. Wheeler (10 Apr 2013 03:00 UTC)

Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"? John Cowan (10 Apr 2013 06:29 UTC)

Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"? David A. Wheeler (11 Apr 2013 02:26 UTC)

Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"? David A. Wheeler (11 Apr 2013 22:37 UTC)

First cut at "curly-write" and "neoteric-write" with -shared and -cyclic versions David A. Wheeler (14 Apr 2013 22:29 UTC)

Draft updated SRFI-110 and reference implementation David A. Wheeler (15 Apr 2013 04:09 UTC)

Re: First cut at "curly-write" and "neoteric-write" with -shared and -cyclic versions Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin (02 May 2013 08:00 UTC)

Re: First cut at "curly-write" and "neoteric-write" with -shared and -cyclic versions David A. Wheeler (02 May 2013 22:46 UTC)

Re: First cut at "curly-write" and "neoteric-write" with -shared and -cyclic versions David A. Wheeler (14 May 2013 00:47 UTC)

Re: First cut at "curly-write" and "neoteric-write" with -shared and -cyclic versions David A. Wheeler 14 May 2013 00:47 UTC

Good news!!  Thanks to help from Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin, I found the problem
in the *-write-shared tests.  It turns out the problem was in the tests, not the tested code;
guile 2.0 does some sharing that I believe is legal, but more than I expected it to do.

I fixed the test suite and it now passes.  So it appears that our sample implementation
is working just fine.

Beni: Thanks very much!!

--- David A. Wheeler