I am quite positive that what I am experiencing is not quite a bug but just some mis-step on my part. But I have been encouraged to report this as a possible bug. Thus, here it is.
Guile version: 3.0.2 (installed using guix)
Reverse function (referred to in the report, assumes 'simply.scm' has been loaded):
(define (reverse wd) (if (equal? wd "") "" (word (reverse (bf wd)) (first wd))))
;; (reverse 'asdf) -> 'fdsa
This started with my first wanting to run a (trace) of a recursive procedure as seen in Chapter 13 of the book 'Simply Scheme' (https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~bh/ssch13/convince-recur.html
). I looked for a waay to (trace) in guile, but couldn't find anything except ,trace, which was giving a trace of everything that the function (reverse) called from inside of it, thus making the trace 'polluted'.
> (trace-calls-to-procedure reverse)
> (reverse 'asdf)
produced no trace. This led me to ask around IRC for some guidance regarding it. Someone from #emacs suggested I try doing this: http://ix.io/2suZ When I attempted to do the same thing, however, I encountered the following error, at the sight of which, it was recommended that I file a (possible) bug report: https://termbin.com/6nm5
The following `script` typescript might also be of interest to the maintainers (to be replayed using `scriptreplay`):
(This one records the (call-with-trace) call with both #:call? #f and without the specification).
I must confess, I don't understand a whole lot of this. All I would like to say is that I have a feeling (trace-calls-to-procedure procedure) should have worked like (trace) as shown in chapter 13 section 'trace' in the book (https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~bh/ssch13/convince-recur.html); it just seems 'right' by the name of it. I was expecting the trace from (trace-call-to-procedure reverse) (reverse 'asdf) to be basically like ,trace (reverse 'asdf) but without the traces of all other procedures.
Please do let me know if I have left out any important details. And please do let me know if I am doing something wrong here. I am almost quite certain this is just a minor error on my part, rather than a bug (and I'd really like to be able to trace those procedures).