[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Self evaluated `t' in Guile 1.4

From: Ivan Toshkov
Subject: Self evaluated `t' in Guile 1.4
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 17:11:22 +0300


I'm using Guile 1.4 and 1.4.1 on an i386 RedHat Linux 6.2 and here's
what happens:

$ guile
guile> (version)
guile> t

I've tried 1.3, and it's giving me the correct error message.

Haven't tested with 1.3.x
>From address@hidden  Sun Sep 24 17:38:04 2000
Received: from mdj.nada.kth.se (address@hidden [])
        by mescaline.gnu.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA11942
        for <address@hidden>; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 17:38:02 -0400
Received: from mdj by mdj.nada.kth.se with local (Exim 3.16 #1 (Debian))
        id 13ctSJ-00047w-00; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 19:51:19 +0200
To: Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden>
Cc: Guile Bug Mailing List <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: eq? and friends accept more than two parameters
References: <address@hidden>
Reply-To: address@hidden
Cc: address@hidden
From: Mikael Djurfeldt <address@hidden>
Date: 23 Sep 2000 19:51:19 +0200
In-Reply-To: Dirk Herrmann's message of "Fri, 22 Sep 2000 12:30:27 +0200 (MEST)"
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
Lines: 21
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) Emacs/20.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: address@hidden
Errors-To: address@hidden
X-BeenThere: address@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta6
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:address@hidden>
List-Post: <mailto:address@hidden>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile>, 
List-Id: Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language 
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile>, 
List-Archive: http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/bug-guile/

Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:

> If I understand R5RS correctly, then eq?, eqv? and equal? should accept
> exactly two parameters.  The current CVS guile, however, accepts more
> parameters as well.  On the one hand, this seems to be a sensible
> extension, but it should somehow be possible to be strictly R5RS
> compliant.
> Hmmm?

You're right that we would need to support both the R5RS primitives
and the more generous primitives if we wanted to keep the extra

However, I don't think multiple parameters of eq? and friends is
sufficiently useful to motivate extra support for it.

I suggest you just remove this extra functionality.

Best regards,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]