Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|
See discussion in issue #13
|
|
|
|
|
|
It appears that the master branch of emacs does not load tramp by
default in some instances. That makes the `run-geiser` function fail,
as `tramp-tramp-file-p` is not defined. This patch makes it check
whether the tramp function was loaded before using it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- correct process call (to check version of guile) to make sure that it's executed in the remote host
- implement `geiser-guile-ensure-scheme-dir` that will (somehow) make sure the scheme files that need sourcing will be available to remote process
- use `geiser-guile-ensure-scheme-dir` instead of `geiser-guile-scheme-dir` in the rest of the code
- cache the guile files being sourced in `geiser-guile-scheme-local-dir` ensure process is called in remote host
|
|
|
|
|
|
And precludes cancellation of asynchronous evaluations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixes issue #5, and then more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Via a custom variable, as usual, and defaulting to not use them, as it
provides a fuller interactive experience. Very tempted to name this
flag heed-mathias-counsel-p...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixes emacs-geiser/guile#9
In geiser-eval REPL meta-command:
All `mod`, `form` and `args` are now syntax objects. The
geiser-guile's logic will handle `mod` and `form` as is because
they're just passed to guile's eval and compile procedures.
`args` are processed by geiser-eval meta-command itself, so
it's necessary to convert it back to a datum. We lose some metadata,
but all elements in the `args` list are also syntax objects so I don't
think it's a big deal.
`syntax->datum` was introduced before guile 2 so this change is
backward compatible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See gitlab issue #303, where Sergey Trofimov kindly described not only
the symptons, but this cure.
|
|
|
|
Starting with Emacs 27 cl is fully deprecated, including at
compile-time.
|
|
|
|
It's the convention and by following it we make a big step towards
supporting outline navigation.
The convention doesn't say much about what parts of the code are
supposed to be part of that sections and what parts belong in a
subsequent section. Here we put the `require' forms in this section
and maybe some setup code, that's a popular approach.
In most cases there was "" where we now insert "Code:". They both
serve a similar purpose and we keep the former because some users
depend on that for navigation. We even add this "" in libraries
where it previously was missing.
In some cases the permission statement was followed by a commentary,
which obviously does not belong in the "Code:" section. In such cases
add the conventional "Commentary:" section.
|
|
It's the convention and by following it we make a big step towards
supporting outline navigation.
|
|
A similar idea should probably be used with other schemes, but right
now i feel ashamed of having taken so long to fix this one (assuming
it's fixed!), so let's rush this commit for a change.
|
|
And by a new pair of glasses in the process.
|