[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Move `system' into (chicken process) [Was: Re:
From: |
Peter Bex |
Subject: |
[Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Move `system' into (chicken process) [Was: Re: [PATCH] Move `system' into (chicken base)] |
Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2018 14:17:10 +0100 |
User-agent: |
NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) |
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 10:22:34PM +1300, Evan Hanson wrote:
> Fair enough. I still think it'd be convenient to keep in base, but I
> understand what you're saying.
>
> I was mostly looking for low-hanging fruit that would be easy to move
> out of the toplevel, but it will be equally easy to simply move the
> Scheme-side definition into posix.scm now and worry about moving the
> implementation later, so if `system' is indeed going in the process
> library then I think that'd be a good first step.
Here's a patch to make it so. I'm not sure what you mean about moving
the implementation though? Were you referring to the C implementation?
I think it's best to keep that in runtime.c
Cheers,
Peter
0001-Move-system-into-chicken.process-posix.scm.patch
Description: Text Data
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Move `system' into (chicken process) [Was: Re: [PATCH] Move `system' into (chicken base)],
Peter Bex <=