[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: possible bug in srfi-19 implementation (fix included)

From: Thien-Thi Nguyen
Subject: Re: possible bug in srfi-19 implementation (fix included)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:36:47 -0700

   From: address@hidden
   Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:03:19 +0200

   (define (mydatetoweeknumber dt) [...])

   Is my solution acceptable? If not, is there anyone who can implement
   a better solution?

looks like your solution codifies ISO-8601, but srfi-19 does not specify
ISO-8601.  if it is possible to implement a "date-week-number-ISO-8601"
using srfi-19 date-week-number (perhaps by providing an appropriate
second arg to date-week-number), it would be good to include that as an
example in the documentation.  would you like to try this approach?

this is a separate issue from whether or not guile's (srfi srfi-19)
date-week-number implementation fulfills the srfi-19 specification.  i
see there is no test for that in test-suite/tests/srfi-19.test.  would
you like to write one?


reply via email to

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