Johnny_Brahms

Transmission comes to mind. It as a gtk, osx and Qt GUI

I don't happen to agree with you on eliminating NIL. I don't understand what the royal pain is.

And dynamic-wind is the price you have to pay for call/cc. UNWIND-PROTECT is not the same thing. Multi-shot continuations is he reason. One way would be having explicit one-shot continuations and escape continuations. Those are faster and will make UNWIND-PROTECT work.

I am more in favour of delimited continuations though.

Delimited continuations makes that a bit simpler (since you can easily implement something like dynamic wind using them).

I am still waiting for all my favourite applications to be extendable in GNU Guile.

On a more general note, I am still waiting for the world to fall for lisp in general.

This was in a small valley near insbruck, Austria in the early nineties. It got some media attention due to some controversy regarding irresponsible tourists. I had however done my research and picked a slope that was regarded as low risk, which was unsurprisingly not reported b the local media :)

This depends on the type of avalanche. I know,because I was caught in one. The one I was in was relatively minor and made up of a large part newly fallen snow. I had stopped for a break and managed to get my skis back on, but the thing overtook me hundred meters later. I had managed to get to higher ground relative to the rest of the slope, which is probably what saved me. I broke one leg and both my arms and got a pretty bad concussion.

I managed to walk/ski (one ski was still on me, but badly broken ) to a nearby village and driven on a stretcher to the hospital.

I am lucky to be alive. It is amazing though how clear you can think in life threatening situations. the moment I noticed the avalanche I knew exactly what to do and where to go. When I was buried I remember rocking back and forth to get some wiggle/breathing room and when it stopped I waited until my mind cleared up, struggling hard to defeat the panic and pain, until assessing g the situation.

To anyone who was as confused as I, it is not the linked comment that is what OP is referencing, but a reply.

I think that the best way to go about it (at least if you want to be successful) would be to write a SRFI that could easily be impkemented using the FFIs that are already out there.

Managing that, but still being flexible enough to be useful, is a huge amount of work, at least if you want to do more than just "call this c function".

I have found that you fairly easily can write portable r6rs code, but whenever you step outside r6rs (for stuff that isn't standard, like networking) it becomes an exhibition of cond-expand abuse.

Because r7rs large is an effort that probably is bigger than common lisp. It is very much not a toy language.

I feel that not standardising a low level FFI for r7rs large is a mistake. They should at least recommend some reasonably low level stuff that can be used to build abstractions.

The simplest way would probably be to implement explicit and implicit renaming macro transformers. They are found in many schemes and are quite a bit simpler than the syntax case you linked to. Then you can just glue parts of ashinn's match.scm on top of it for the pattern matching.

There is also a srfi for an improved hygiene low level macro facility that is rather elegant. Can't remember the number though. 70-something.

I think immer is brilliant. I just saw that you have guile bindings, which makes it even more exciting!

I like that they are lgpl as well. I am a believer in that kind of freedom definition, and I hope you can dual-license it successfully.

    (define-syntax nest
      (syntax-rules ()
        ((nest x) x)
        ((nest x ... (y ...) z) (nest x ... (y ... z)))))

That one is quadratic according to the author, but for 1050 expands of a nest with 6 levels it is less than 10% slower. Whereas in chez scheme, the difference is even less (for more than 2000 expansions)

Edit: Decided to stress test the chez scheme macro expader. for 30000 expansions, it was under 1s using the syntax-case version. I'd say that is very much good enough.