I just made bootstrap from the 4.6.1 development sources, which I downloaded using git.
When I start gsi and, according to the section "Subdivide code into modules" in the tour of Scheme in Gambit, I use "use" it tells me
hendrik@notlookedfor:~/dv/lang/gambit/gambit$ gsi/gsi Gambit v4.6.1
(use ssax-sxml)
*** ERROR IN (console)@1.2 -- Unbound variable: use 1>
So evidently something is still missing, unconfigured, unbuilt, or whatever. It doesn't even get around to looking for the library -- which is another question: how does it find the libraries, assuming it gets that far. And if the X module system is itself a module, how do I bootstrap it into the system?
Or should I be using an entirely different mechanism?
-- hendrik
Afficher les réponses par date
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 02:03:17 +0000, Hendrik Boom wrote:
I just made bootstrap from the 4.6.1 development sources, which I downloaded using git.
When I start gsi and, according to the section "Subdivide code into modules" in the tour of Scheme in Gambit, I use "use" it tells me
hendrik@notlookedfor:~/dv/lang/gambit/gambit$ gsi/gsi Gambit v4.6.1
(use ssax-sxml)
*** ERROR IN (console)@1.2 -- Unbound variable: use 1>
So evidently something is still missing, unconfigured, unbuilt, or whatever. It doesn't even get around to looking for the library -- which is another question: how does it find the libraries, assuming it gets that far. And if the X module system is itself a module, how do I bootstrap it into the system?
Or should I be using an entirely different mechanism?
-- hendrik
Well, I found other items on gmane's archive of this mailing list. IT looks as if the answer is that Gambit itself doesn't provide modules at all, despite the mention in the Tour of Scheme in Gambit. But it seems that there exists a completely separate module facility that can be used with it. With its own installation instructions. And by the way, one should use (import ...) instead of (use ...)
Really, this information shouldn't be that hard to find.
And is there a good reason why so many manuals on the gambit web site are in pdf, odt, and doc formats and not in the obvious web-friendly html?
I'll report again when I've worked through the BlackHole installation.
-- hendrik
2011/10/14 Hendrik Boom hendrik@topoi.pooq.com
Well, I found other items on gmane's archive of this mailing list. IT looks as if the answer is that Gambit itself doesn't provide modules at all, despite the mention in the Tour of Scheme in Gambit. But it seems that there exists a completely separate module facility that can be used with it. With its own installation instructions. And by the way, one should use (import ...) instead of (use ...)
Indeed.
Gambit as a Scheme environment is with benefit separated from module handling functionality, as module systems tend not to be 'universal' 'one-fits-everything' solutions.
A Tour of Scheme in Gambit is intended to give a programmer an introductory glimpse of practical use of Gambit. In total one short chapter only touches Black Hole, as to show that you can do modules in Scheme and the benefit of it. This is one of in total two mentionings of Gambit-external libraries in the document, the other one being ssax-sxml.
Really, this information shouldn't be that hard to find.
With the generality of Scheme comes that the amount of possible setups are infinite.
Thus the strong separation language environment from module system, module system from libraries.
I understand you may have suggestions for improvement on the documentation about second or third of these, if so feel free to post these when you have them.
And is there a good reason why so many manuals on the gambit web site are
in pdf, odt, and doc formats and not in the obvious web-friendly html?
What's in these formats are the documents "A Tour of Scheme in Gambit" and the Black Hole documentation, neither of which are Gambit manuals but solely Gambit-related documents, similar to what's collected on the Dumping grounds.
Those docs were written in this format since it suited them at least of the time of writing. The further document is intended for print solely so for it a format other than html fits.
The latter one could with benefit be switched from odt as source format to html; you are the first one who asks for this.
I'll report again when I've worked through the BlackHole installation.
In relation with Black Hole, that you already downloaded at https://github.com/pereckerdal/blackhole , there is a bundle of libraries that can be used within the (std) module resolver at https://github.com/pereckerdal/blackhole-libs , also check some updates posted on this ml the 18:th of may this year.
These are for the master branch. With the syntactictower branch of Black Hole, a set of SRFI:s are bundled, and this abovementioned bundle of libraries.
Brgds
-- hendrik
Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
The latter one could with benefit be switched from odt as source format to
html; you are the first one who asks for this.
For what it's worth, let me be the second who asks for this :) PDF docs are unpopular because they take a while to load, they usually aren't well hyperlinked, and individual pages can't be bookmarked in the browser.
As for Black Hole, one can argue that it should be kept as a separate package, but there's nothing in that argument that says it can't be included with the default Gambit installation. I would say the same for the SRFI's floating around in Snow and Dumping Grounds. I would like for them to be included by default, and be kept "separable" if that's something the user cares about.
Such "batteries inculded" installations are nice because they encourage exploratory programming by lowering the barrier to trying out new features (e.g. SRFI's). They also lower the adoption barrier for Gambit as a whole, by lessening fears that every little thing is going to be some obscure installation chore. This is particularly important for non-mainstream languages, which, with some justification, bear the stigma of being a pain to set up.
-- Matt
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 4:20 AM, Mikael mikael.rcv@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/14 Hendrik Boom hendrik@topoi.pooq.com
Well, I found other items on gmane's archive of this mailing list. IT looks as if the answer is that Gambit itself doesn't provide modules at all, despite the mention in the Tour of Scheme in Gambit. But it seems that there exists a completely separate module facility that can be used with it. With its own installation instructions. And by the way, one should use (import ...) instead of (use ...)
Indeed.
Gambit as a Scheme environment is with benefit separated from module handling functionality, as module systems tend not to be 'universal' 'one-fits-everything' solutions.
A Tour of Scheme in Gambit is intended to give a programmer an introductory glimpse of practical use of Gambit. In total one short chapter only touches Black Hole, as to show that you can do modules in Scheme and the benefit of it. This is one of in total two mentionings of Gambit-external libraries in the document, the other one being ssax-sxml.
Really, this information shouldn't be that hard to find.
With the generality of Scheme comes that the amount of possible setups are infinite.
Thus the strong separation language environment from module system, module system from libraries.
I understand you may have suggestions for improvement on the documentation about second or third of these, if so feel free to post these when you have them.
And is there a good reason why so many manuals on the gambit web site are
in pdf, odt, and doc formats and not in the obvious web-friendly html?
What's in these formats are the documents "A Tour of Scheme in Gambit" and the Black Hole documentation, neither of which are Gambit manuals but solely Gambit-related documents, similar to what's collected on the Dumping grounds.
Those docs were written in this format since it suited them at least of the time of writing. The further document is intended for print solely so for it a format other than html fits.
The latter one could with benefit be switched from odt as source format to html; you are the first one who asks for this.
I'll report again when I've worked through the BlackHole installation.
In relation with Black Hole, that you already downloaded at https://github.com/pereckerdal/blackhole , there is a bundle of libraries that can be used within the (std) module resolver at https://github.com/pereckerdal/blackhole-libs , also check some updates posted on this ml the 18:th of may this year.
These are for the master branch. With the syntactictower branch of Black Hole, a set of SRFI:s are bundled, and this abovementioned bundle of libraries.
Brgds
-- hendrik
Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
2011/10/14 Matthew Koichi Grimes mkg@cs.nyu.edu
The latter one could with benefit be switched from odt as source format
to html; you are the first one who asks for this.
For what it's worth, let me be the second who asks for this :) PDF docs are unpopular because they take a while to load, they usually aren't well hyperlinked, and individual pages can't be bookmarked in the browser.
Very well, I intend to sort this one out in some while.
As for Black Hole, one can argue that it should be kept as a separate package, but there's nothing in that argument that says it can't be included with the default Gambit installation. I would say the same for the SRFI's floating around in Snow and Dumping Grounds. I would like for them to be included by default, and be kept "separable" if that's something the user cares about.
Such "batteries inculded" installations are nice because they encourage exploratory programming by lowering the barrier to trying out new features (e.g. SRFI's). They also lower the adoption barrier for Gambit as a whole, by lessening fears that every little thing is going to be some obscure installation chore. This is particularly important for non-mainstream languages, which, with some justification, bear the stigma of being a pain to set up.
What about for separate download some kind of bundle distribution, Gambit + module system + libraries package, maybe even with an autoinstaller.
There's even space to be more such package variants, anyone can just put one together and make it available really.
(Re putting module system and libraries into the default Gambit distribution, I believe you want to keep them separate as they're fundamentally different things. Consider this comparison of programming environments - Gambit as GCC, module system/B.H. as automake and bundled libraries as - uh - Boost.)
Brgds Mikael
-- Matt
I think a bundled distribution would be great, if everything (blackhole, SRFIs, whatever else) gets compiled and installed with a standard configure-make-install.
Another option (not mutually exclusive with the above) could be to break down the separate parts as separate packages in Ubuntu. For eample, the current barebones gambit installation could be called "gambc-core", blackhole would be "gambc-modules", and the SRFIs "gambc-srfis", etc, with "gambc" being an umbrella package that installs all of them.
-- Matt
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Mikael mikael.rcv@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/14 Matthew Koichi Grimes mkg@cs.nyu.edu
The latter one could with benefit be switched from odt as source format
to html; you are the first one who asks for this.
For what it's worth, let me be the second who asks for this :) PDF docs are unpopular because they take a while to load, they usually aren't well hyperlinked, and individual pages can't be bookmarked in the browser.
Very well, I intend to sort this one out in some while.
As for Black Hole, one can argue that it should be kept as a separate package, but there's nothing in that argument that says it can't be included with the default Gambit installation. I would say the same for the SRFI's floating around in Snow and Dumping Grounds. I would like for them to be included by default, and be kept "separable" if that's something the user cares about.
Such "batteries inculded" installations are nice because they encourage exploratory programming by lowering the barrier to trying out new features (e.g. SRFI's). They also lower the adoption barrier for Gambit as a whole, by lessening fears that every little thing is going to be some obscure installation chore. This is particularly important for non-mainstream languages, which, with some justification, bear the stigma of being a pain to set up.
What about for separate download some kind of bundle distribution, Gambit + module system + libraries package, maybe even with an autoinstaller.
There's even space to be more such package variants, anyone can just put one together and make it available really.
(Re putting module system and libraries into the default Gambit distribution, I believe you want to keep them separate as they're fundamentally different things. Consider this comparison of programming environments - Gambit as GCC, module system/B.H. as automake and bundled libraries as - uh - Boost.)
Brgds Mikael
-- Matt
Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 06:35:38PM +0300, Mikael wrote:
2011/10/14 Matthew Koichi Grimes mkg@cs.nyu.edu
As for Black Hole, one can argue that it should be kept as a separate package, but there's nothing in that argument that says it can't be included with the default Gambit installation. I would say the same for the SRFI's floating around in Snow and Dumping Grounds. I would like for them to be included by default, and be kept "separable" if that's something the user cares about.
Such "batteries inculded" installations are nice because they encourage exploratory programming by lowering the barrier to trying out new features (e.g. SRFI's). They also lower the adoption barrier for Gambit as a whole, by lessening fears that every little thing is going to be some obscure installation chore. This is particularly important for non-mainstream languages, which, with some justification, bear the stigma of being a pain to set up.
Any chance the v4.6.4 prebuilts are batteries-included in this sense?
-- hendrik
On 2012-01-19, at 5:45 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 06:35:38PM +0300, Mikael wrote:
2011/10/14 Matthew Koichi Grimes mkg@cs.nyu.edu
As for Black Hole, one can argue that it should be kept as a separate package, but there's nothing in that argument that says it can't be included with the default Gambit installation. I would say the same for the SRFI's floating around in Snow and Dumping Grounds. I would like for them to be included by default, and be kept "separable" if that's something the user cares about.
Such "batteries inculded" installations are nice because they encourage exploratory programming by lowering the barrier to trying out new features (e.g. SRFI's). They also lower the adoption barrier for Gambit as a whole, by lessening fears that every little thing is going to be some obscure installation chore. This is particularly important for non-mainstream languages, which, with some justification, bear the stigma of being a pain to set up.
Any chance the v4.6.4 prebuilts are batteries-included in this sense?
I'm open to suggestions on how to include Black Hole in the Gambit distribution. The problem I see is that Black Hole is maintained separately (which is a *good* thing) but it means that the version distributed with Gambit will not be up to date. Perhaps one way around this is to add a configure switch (--enable-black-hole) to automatically download the latest Black Hole and install it along Gambit. Perhaps this should be done using Alex Shinn's new Snow package system... There are so many options!
Marc
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 06:27:17PM -0500, Marc Feeley wrote:
On 2012-01-19, at 5:45 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 06:35:38PM +0300, Mikael wrote:
2011/10/14 Matthew Koichi Grimes mkg@cs.nyu.edu
As for Black Hole, one can argue that it should be kept as a separate package, but there's nothing in that argument that says it can't be included with the default Gambit installation. I would say the same for the SRFI's floating around in Snow and Dumping Grounds. I would like for them to be included by default, and be kept "separable" if that's something the user cares about.
Such "batteries inculded" installations are nice because they encourage exploratory programming by lowering the barrier to trying out new features (e.g. SRFI's). They also lower the adoption barrier for Gambit as a whole, by lessening fears that every little thing is going to be some obscure installation chore. This is particularly important for non-mainstream languages, which, with some justification, bear the stigma of being a pain to set up.
Any chance the v4.6.4 prebuilts are batteries-included in this sense?
I'm open to suggestions on how to include Black Hole in the Gambit distribution. The problem I see is that Black Hole is maintained separately (which is a *good* thing) but it means that the version distributed with Gambit will not be up to date. Perhaps one way around this is to add a configure switch (--enable-black-hole) to automatically download the latest Black Hole and install it along Gambit. Perhaps this should be done using Alex Shinn's new Snow package system... There are so many options!
It's more important for the version of BlackHole distributed with Gambit to be compatible with that version of Gambit than it is for it to be up-to-date.
-- hendrik
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Marc Feeley feeley@iro.umontreal.cawrote:
On 2012-01-19, at 5:45 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 06:35:38PM +0300, Mikael wrote:
2011/10/14 Matthew Koichi Grimes mkg@cs.nyu.edu
As for Black Hole, one can argue that it should be kept as a separate package, but there's nothing in that argument that says it can't be
included
with the default Gambit installation. I would say the same for the
SRFI's
floating around in Snow and Dumping Grounds. I would like for them to
be
included by default, and be kept "separable" if that's something the
user
cares about.
Such "batteries inculded" installations are nice because they encourage exploratory programming by lowering the barrier to trying out new
features
(e.g. SRFI's). They also lower the adoption barrier for Gambit as a
whole,
by lessening fears that every little thing is going to be some obscure installation chore. This is particularly important for non-mainstream languages, which, with some justification, bear the stigma of being a
pain
to set up.
Any chance the v4.6.4 prebuilts are batteries-included in this sense?
I'm open to suggestions on how to include Black Hole in the Gambit distribution. The problem I see is that Black Hole is maintained separately (which is a *good* thing) but it means that the version distributed with Gambit will not be up to date. Perhaps one way around this is to add a configure switch (--enable-black-hole) to automatically download the latest Black Hole and install it along Gambit. Perhaps this should be done using Alex Shinn's new Snow package system... There are so many options!
From WG's wiki http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/Snow
Snow itself is an module management system depends on r7rs scheme, which solved half of the job blackhole did. Anyway, doe it means that Gambit *will* support r7rs?
Meng
Marc
Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:46:14AM +0800, Meng Zhang wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Marc Feeley feeley@iro.umontreal.cawrote:
I'm open to suggestions on how to include Black Hole in the Gambit distribution. The problem I see is that Black Hole is maintained separately (which is a *good* thing) but it means that the version distributed with Gambit will not be up to date. Perhaps one way around this is to add a configure switch (--enable-black-hole) to automatically download the latest Black Hole and install it along Gambit. Perhaps this should be done using Alex Shinn's new Snow package system... There are so many options!
From WG's wiki http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/Snow
Snow itself is an module management system depends on r7rs scheme, which solved half of the job blackhole did. Anyway, doe it means that Gambit *will* support r7rs?
Snow seems to be part of the big language, not the small language.
From the looks of its description on the r7rs committee wiki
(http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/Snow), it seems to provide the information needed for automatic repackaging as a Debian package, for example.
Maybe that's a kind of an answer. Make Debian packages for Gambit, Blackhole, etc, with dependencies, so that installing Blackhole will install gambit, and provide the necessary symbolic links and such in the postinstall script?
Not sure what form this should take in distro-independentt source, though.
-- hendrik
On 2012-01-19, at 9:46 PM, Meng Zhang wrote:
From WG's wiki http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/Snow Snow itself is an module management system depends on r7rs scheme, which solved half of the job blackhole did. Anyway, doe it means that Gambit *will* support r7rs?
I'm not sure yet. There are good things and bad things in the r7rs draft. I sure hope the final r7rs will be closer to the design philosophy of Gambit, and if it is, I will make Gambit fully r7rs compliant.
At this point, the most attractive thing surrounding r7rs is snow.
Marc
I'd vote for having a separate batteries included package (GambitBHL you could call it, for instance, or GaBHLi) for the purpose of a batteries included Gambit/BH.
Any 'batteries included'-purposed set of libraries will be scoped in purpose specifically for exactly that, and will by far not be completely general. BH in itself is much less general purpose than Gambit.
Such a GambitBHL distro could be put together using automated scripts, both for a source and a binary distro. (The script would get latest Gambit, latest BH and the latest b.i.-libs) and be separately downloadable from the Gambit site.
The libs at https://github.com/pereckerdal/blackhole-libs could do as a batteries included-purposed set of libs. I have some updates to it over here that remain to be updated. (And, it and the non-syntactictower version of BH, both need the SRFI:s to be split out to a separate srfi package, and within the srfi package some minor adjustments of the naming remain; their names should be numbers 1 13 14 etc. with named variants as mirrors ie list string char etc., at least this came out from my conversation with Per previously.)
Given these updates, all that would be needed after this would be the scripts to put together the complete GambitBHL distro in a source and a binary variant, that mirrors the current set of Gambit binary sets avail online today.
As a side note, Per has made some developments on a package handling mechanism in BH recently, possibly he can tell about it himself.
What are your thoughts on GambitBHL?
Furthermore, if you have any feedback or suggested contributions on the suggested list of included libraries listed above, please let the ml know.
Kind regards, Mikael
2012/1/20 Marc Feeley feeley@iro.umontreal.ca
On 2012-01-19, at 5:45 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 06:35:38PM +0300, Mikael wrote:
2011/10/14 Matthew Koichi Grimes mkg@cs.nyu.edu
As for Black Hole, one can argue that it should be kept as a separate package, but there's nothing in that argument that says it can't be
included
with the default Gambit installation. I would say the same for the
SRFI's
floating around in Snow and Dumping Grounds. I would like for them to
be
included by default, and be kept "separable" if that's something the
user
cares about.
Such "batteries inculded" installations are nice because they encourage exploratory programming by lowering the barrier to trying out new
features
(e.g. SRFI's). They also lower the adoption barrier for Gambit as a
whole,
by lessening fears that every little thing is going to be some obscure installation chore. This is particularly important for non-mainstream languages, which, with some justification, bear the stigma of being a
pain
to set up.
Any chance the v4.6.4 prebuilts are batteries-included in this sense?
I'm open to suggestions on how to include Black Hole in the Gambit distribution. The problem I see is that Black Hole is maintained separately (which is a *good* thing) but it means that the version distributed with Gambit will not be up to date. Perhaps one way around this is to add a configure switch (--enable-black-hole) to automatically download the latest Black Hole and install it along Gambit. Perhaps this should be done using Alex Shinn's new Snow package system... There are so many options!
Marc
Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
Hi,
I think it would be very interesting to include in a way or another Blackhole with Gambit. There are currently two branches of BH: one that implements a proper syntactic tower and one that doesn't. Of course the syntactictower branch seems a better option. But I've been using it and extending it for my purposes of making it usable with Android (mostly compiling to C all modules). I've found some issues that make it, in my opinion, not mature enough for including it in a Gambit distribution. Perhaps after fixing some of these we should make it an easier install option for Gambit. I'll be happy to help with that, as I have some knowledge of the internals of Black hole at the moment.
Best regards,
Álvaro Castro-Castilla
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Mikael mikael.rcv@gmail.com wrote:
I'd vote for having a separate batteries included package (GambitBHL you could call it, for instance, or GaBHLi) for the purpose of a batteries included Gambit/BH.
Any 'batteries included'-purposed set of libraries will be scoped in purpose specifically for exactly that, and will by far not be completely general. BH in itself is much less general purpose than Gambit.
Such a GambitBHL distro could be put together using automated scripts, both for a source and a binary distro. (The script would get latest Gambit, latest BH and the latest b.i.-libs) and be separately downloadable from the Gambit site.
The libs at https://github.com/pereckerdal/blackhole-libs could do as a batteries included-purposed set of libs. I have some updates to it over here that remain to be updated. (And, it and the non-syntactictower version of BH, both need the SRFI:s to be split out to a separate srfi package, and within the srfi package some minor adjustments of the naming remain; their names should be numbers 1 13 14 etc. with named variants as mirrors ie list string char etc., at least this came out from my conversation with Per previously.)
Given these updates, all that would be needed after this would be the scripts to put together the complete GambitBHL distro in a source and a binary variant, that mirrors the current set of Gambit binary sets avail online today.
As a side note, Per has made some developments on a package handling mechanism in BH recently, possibly he can tell about it himself.
What are your thoughts on GambitBHL?
Furthermore, if you have any feedback or suggested contributions on the suggested list of included libraries listed above, please let the ml know.
Kind regards, Mikael
2012/1/20 Marc Feeley feeley@iro.umontreal.ca
On 2012-01-19, at 5:45 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 06:35:38PM +0300, Mikael wrote:
2011/10/14 Matthew Koichi Grimes mkg@cs.nyu.edu
As for Black Hole, one can argue that it should be kept as a separate package, but there's nothing in that argument that says it can't be
included
with the default Gambit installation. I would say the same for the
SRFI's
floating around in Snow and Dumping Grounds. I would like for them to
be
included by default, and be kept "separable" if that's something the
user
cares about.
Such "batteries inculded" installations are nice because they
encourage
exploratory programming by lowering the barrier to trying out new
features
(e.g. SRFI's). They also lower the adoption barrier for Gambit as a
whole,
by lessening fears that every little thing is going to be some obscure installation chore. This is particularly important for non-mainstream languages, which, with some justification, bear the stigma of being a
pain
to set up.
Any chance the v4.6.4 prebuilts are batteries-included in this sense?
I'm open to suggestions on how to include Black Hole in the Gambit distribution. The problem I see is that Black Hole is maintained separately (which is a *good* thing) but it means that the version distributed with Gambit will not be up to date. Perhaps one way around this is to add a configure switch (--enable-black-hole) to automatically download the latest Black Hole and install it along Gambit. Perhaps this should be done using Alex Shinn's new Snow package system... There are so many options!
Marc
Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
Hallo,
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Mikael mikael.rcv@gmail.com wrote:
Furthermore, if you have any feedback or suggested contributions on the suggested list of included libraries listed above, please let the ml know.
I like the way Haskell people did it. GHC is one project, and the Haskell Platform[1] uses that. Similarly, Gambit-C it's a self contained project, and the "batteries included" distribution would be the "Gambit Platform".
My suggestions: - SRFI-1 - SRFI-2 - SRFI-13 - SRFI-14 - SSAX - Irregex - Meroon
[1] - http://hackage.haskell.org/platform/
Cheers,
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 10:57:23AM -0400, Matthew Koichi Grimes wrote:
As for Black Hole, one can argue that it should be kept as a separate package, but there's nothing in that argument that says it can't be included with the default Gambit installation. I would say the same for the SRFI's floating around in Snow and Dumping Grounds. I would like for them to be included by default, and be kept "separable" if that's something the user cares about.
I'm sensitive to the idea that the various potential components of a Scheme or Lisp system should be kept separate, because the very nature of these languages is their malleability. But a module system is a special case, because it's the thing that enables all these disparate functionalities to be combined smoothly. Which is why I'd be very much in favour of having one specified in R7RS.
But there's no particular reason why the module system needs to be embedded within a monolithic implementation. There are more modularity tools available than Scheme's module system. There separate compilation in C. There's the packaging systems and dependency management in the various Linux distribution. But most important is making sure that beginners know what to do to access them, so we can avoid having further discussions like this one.
Such "batteries inculded" installations are nice because they encourage exploratory programming by lowering the barrier to trying out new features (e.g. SRFI's). They also lower the adoption barrier for Gambit as a whole, by lessening fears that every little thing is going to be some obscure installation chore. This is particularly important for non-mainstream languages, which, with some justification, bear the stigma of being a pain to set up.
Accessibility -- to beginners. Otherwise beginners will remain rare, and rarely progress to mature users..
-- hendrik
On 14 Oct 2011, at 15:57, Matthew Koichi Grimes wrote:
The latter one could with benefit be switched from odt as source format to html; you are the first one who asks for this.
For what it's worth, let me be the second who asks for this :) PDF docs are unpopular because they take a while to load, they usually aren't well hyperlinked, and individual pages can't be bookmarked in the browser.
Thirded (or fourth / fifth, I've not read other posts yet). A simple html / markup document format is also drastically more likely to be edited than an open office document. It is nice to sometimes get the whole document on the screen in one lump though, but HTML can do that easily too.
As for Black Hole, one can argue that it should be kept as a separate package, but there's nothing in that argument that says it can't be included with the default Gambit installation. I would say the same for the SRFI's floating around in Snow and Dumping Grounds. I would like for them to be included by default, and be kept "separable" if that's something the user cares about.
I also very much agree!
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 08:18:49PM +0100, Benjohn Barnes wrote:
On 14 Oct 2011, at 15:57, Matthew Koichi Grimes wrote:
The latter one could with benefit be switched from odt as source format to html; you are the first one who asks for this.
For what it's worth, let me be the second who asks for this :) PDF docs are unpopular because they take a while to load, they usually aren't well hyperlinked, and individual pages can't be bookmarked in the browser.
Thirded (or fourth / fifth, I've not read other posts yet). A simple html / markup document format is also drastically more likely to be edited than an open office document. It is nice to sometimes get the whole document on the screen in one lump though, but HTML can do that easily too.
If I'm not mistaked, libreoffice can produce HTML from its native format. There's no need to convert the entire document maintenance to HTML.
-- hendrik
On 14 Oct 2011, at 04:11, Hendrik Boom wrote:
Well, I found other items on gmane's archive of this mailing list. IT looks as if the answer is that Gambit itself doesn't provide modules at all, despite the mention in the Tour of Scheme in Gambit. But it seems that there exists a completely separate module facility that can be used with it. With its own installation instructions. And by the way, one should use (import ...) instead of (use ...)
Hi Hendrik,
The module system is Blackhole. Yes, it is separate from Gambit. I volunteered to fix the documentation for Mikael about the use / import confusion, but then didn't – apologies. I also volunteered to write a usage guide for Blackhole for Per (the maintainer) based on some very useful emails he sent me, but I didn't do that either, sorry.
I've just downloaded Openoffice to have a go at fixing the guide. I'll forward the emails from Per on to you as I think you'll find them helpful.
Thanks, Benjohn
At some point I might get into updating the documentation on Black Hole.
(Its structure will be something like this: * There will be one manual document for Black Hole. It'll be in HTML with a PDF version. As for now it will regard the main branch (non-syntactic tower), and mention the syntactic tower branch. This document is about Black Hole only, not about any modules. It'll have updated download links etc. Should the syntactic tower branch get to prove to be better the manual's focus will switch to that as the primary. * Peripherally on a secondary position the current set of bundled libs will be available and with a manual alike the current one, optional for anyone interested. This is an informal limited general-purpose library collection, not a 'standard library'.)
Until then feel free to send me any feedback, or other material you see could fit in there that's not currently in http://dynamo.iro.umontreal.ca/~gambit/wiki/images/3/30/Black_Hole_Core.pdf.
Brgds, Mikael
2011/10/14 Benjohn Barnes benjohn@fysh.org
On 14 Oct 2011, at 04:11, Hendrik Boom wrote:
Well, I found other items on gmane's archive of this mailing list. IT looks as if the answer is that Gambit itself doesn't provide modules at all, despite the mention in the Tour of Scheme in Gambit. But it seems that there exists a completely separate module facility that can be used with it. With its own installation instructions. And by the way, one should use (import ...) instead of (use ...)
Hi Hendrik,
The module system is Blackhole. Yes, it is separate from Gambit. I volunteered to fix the documentation for Mikael about the use / import confusion, but then didn't – apologies. I also volunteered to write a usage guide for Blackhole for Per (the maintainer) based on some very useful emails he sent me, but I didn't do that either, sorry.
I've just downloaded Openoffice to have a go at fixing the guide. I'll forward the emails from Per on to you as I think you'll find them helpful.
Thanks, Benjohn
-- benjohn@fysh.org - Twitter @benjohnbarnes - Skype benjohnbarnes - Mobile +44 (0) 7968 851 636
Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:33:00 +0100, Benjohn Barnes wrote:
On 14 Oct 2011, at 04:11, Hendrik Boom wrote:
Well, I found other items on gmane's archive of this mailing list. IT looks as if the answer is that Gambit itself doesn't provide modules at all, despite the mention in the Tour of Scheme in Gambit. But it seems that there exists a completely separate module facility that can be used with it. With its own installation instructions. And by the way, one should use (import ...) instead of (use ...)
Hi Hendrik,
The module system is Blackhole. Yes, it is separate from Gambit. I volunteered to fix the documentation for Mikael about the use / import confusion, but then didn't – apologies. I also volunteered to write a usage guide for Blackhole for Per (the maintainer) based on some very useful emails he sent me, but I didn't do that either, sorry.
Yeah, I saw that offer on gmane's mailing list archive. I was thinking of doing that myself, since it hadn't been done yet, but was delaying because I thought it better to make sure I knew the facts first. But yes, go ahead. I'll leave it alone. .odt does't go through revision control well, so merging disparate updates isn't automatic.
I've just downloaded Openoffice to have a go at fixing the guide.
OpenOffice seems to be in the process of being superseded by LibreOffice, the free fork of the codebase that started after Oracle tried to take it proprietary. You might want to consider it for future work. I've found it useful; OpenOffice on Debian seems to have lost a feature I relied on; LibreOffice restored it. Most Linux distros now provide LibreOffice.
I'll forward the emails from Per on to you as I think you'll find them helpful.
The confusing thing, besides things having the wrong names, is that there's no mention that BlackHole needs to be installed separately. Had I known that, I would have looked to install it, rather than thinking it was already there. The document *does* link to downloading and installation instructions for Gambit. Linking to the same for BlackHole, perhaps in the section where modules were discussed, would have been a *huge* help.
Thanks, Benjohn
You're welcome.
-- hendrik
You mean putting something like this on Gambit's main page, for instance at the bottom of "What's Gambit?":
"Please note that Gambit is in itself provides Scheme compiler and system functionality solely. Programming libraries and module system functionality are separate from the main Gambit distribution linked to on this page. For more information on libraries and module systems see the designated sections in this Wiki."
Would make sense. Any thoughts?
Regards, Mikael
2011/10/14 Hendrik Boom hendrik@topoi.pooq.com
The confusing thing, besides things having the wrong names, is that there's no mention that BlackHole needs to be installed separately. Had I known that, I would have looked to install it, rather than thinking it was already there. The document *does* link to downloading and installation instructions for Gambit. Linking to the same for BlackHole, perhaps in the section where modules were discussed, would have been a *huge* help.
-- hendrik
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:43:39 +0300, Mikael wrote:
You mean putting something like this on Gambit's main page, for instance at the bottom of "What's Gambit?":
"Please note that Gambit is in itself provides Scheme compiler and system functionality solely. Programming libraries and module system functionality are separate from the main Gambit distribution linked to on this page. For more information on libraries and module systems see the designated sections in this Wiki."
Would make sense. Any thoughts?
Regards, Mikael
That reads like a legal disclaimer, though it does provide useful information.
Also a mention that BlackHole needs a separate installation in the very section where BlackHole is mentioned in the Tour of Scheme in Gambit. That's where a lot of people are likely to be reading when they decide they'd like to use BlackHole, so it's a logical place to mention it. Possibly with a link to the relevant page on the wiki. There's a link for Gambit; if BlackHole is to be considered separate, there's no reason why it shouldn't have its own installation link.
-- hendrik
Hi,
The Tour of Scheme in Gambit said all the time that a module system is needed for there to be module support.
At the time I just wrote an X for its name, as Black Hole didn't have a name yet. Also, the use form switched name to import two years ago or so. For both of these I thought this was updated since this fall though, let me know if it's not.
With the next revision of the Black Hole docs, I'll consider making the 'root source' document in the same format as Gambit's manual, and generate HTML and PDF from there the same way as Gambit does.
Brgds, Mikael
2011/10/14 Hendrik Boom hendrik@topoi.pooq.com
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 02:03:17 +0000, Hendrik Boom wrote:
I just made bootstrap from the 4.6.1 development sources, which I downloaded using git.
When I start gsi and, according to the section "Subdivide code into modules" in the tour of Scheme in Gambit, I use "use" it tells me
hendrik@notlookedfor:~/dv/lang/gambit/gambit$ gsi/gsi Gambit v4.6.1
(use ssax-sxml)
*** ERROR IN (console)@1.2 -- Unbound variable: use 1>
So evidently something is still missing, unconfigured, unbuilt, or whatever. It doesn't even get around to looking for the library -- which is another question: how does it find the libraries, assuming it gets that far. And if the X module system is itself a module, how do I bootstrap it into the system?
Or should I be using an entirely different mechanism?
-- hendrik
Well, I found other items on gmane's archive of this mailing list. IT looks as if the answer is that Gambit itself doesn't provide modules at all, despite the mention in the Tour of Scheme in Gambit. But it seems that there exists a completely separate module facility that can be used with it. With its own installation instructions. And by the way, one should use (import ...) instead of (use ...)
Really, this information shouldn't be that hard to find.
And is there a good reason why so many manuals on the gambit web site are in pdf, odt, and doc formats and not in the obvious web-friendly html?
I'll report again when I've worked through the BlackHole installation.
-- hendrik
Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
Please see the email conversation with Benjohn Barnes at the beginning of June this year for your answer. I thought the doc you read was updated beyond what you see now.
You are using Black Hole special forms, find documentation about them in Black Hole's manual that's found via the wiki.
Brgds
2011/10/14 Hendrik Boom hendrik@topoi.pooq.com
I just made bootstrap from the 4.6.1 development sources, which I downloaded using git.
When I start gsi and, according to the section "Subdivide code into modules" in the tour of Scheme in Gambit, I use "use" it tells me
hendrik@notlookedfor:~/dv/lang/gambit/gambit$ gsi/gsi Gambit v4.6.1
(use ssax-sxml)
*** ERROR IN (console)@1.2 -- Unbound variable: use 1>
So evidently something is still missing, unconfigured, unbuilt, or whatever. It doesn't even get around to looking for the library -- which is another question: how does it find the libraries, assuming it gets that far. And if the X module system is itself a module, how do I bootstrap it into the system?
Or should I be using an entirely different mechanism?
-- hendrik
Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
-
Alex Queiroz -
Benjohn Barnes -
Hendrik Boom -
Marc Feeley -
Matthew Koichi Grimes -
Meng Zhang -
Mikael -
Álvaro Castro-Castilla