Sorry, naturally I forgot the patch:
--- a/expand.scm
+++ b/expand.scm
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@
(for-each
(cut ##sys#put! '##core#real-name )
aliases vars)
- (append (map cons vars aliases) se))
+ (append (map (lambda (x y) (cons x y)) vars aliases) se)) ; inline cons
cheers,
felix
Am Sonntag, den 05.12.2010, 16:15 -0700 schrieb Alan Post:
Should `equal?' descend into procedures, or just do an `eq?' test?
R5RS only requires a structural equivalence test for pairs and
vectors, but being able to contain (say) records is something that's
too handy not to have.
Would the
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 05:15:40AM -0500, Felix wrote:
From: Alan Post alanp...@sunflowerriver.org
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] jbogenturfa'i: Error: stack overflow
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 16:15:26 -0700
On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 06:34:44PM +0100, Felix wrote:
From: Alan Post
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 01:59:01PM +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 05.12.2010, 16:15 -0700 schrieb Alan Post:
Should `equal?' descend into procedures, or just do an `eq?' test?
R5RS only requires a structural equivalence test for pairs and
vectors, but being able to
Alan Post scripsit:
I was hoping, I guess, for procedures to be compared with 'eq?'.
I think that's the Right Thing. Of course, it's tricky to know when
procedures are EQV? in any case, but descending into them doesn't
make any sense to me.
--
First known example of political correctness:
Am Montag, den 06.12.2010, 08:51 -0700 schrieb Alan Post:
R5RS section 6.1 has this example:
(equal? (lambda (x) x)
(lambda (y) y)) === unspecified
Thanks!!
Just got a ticket to be fixed here. :-/
___
Chicken-users mailing
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 05:08:32PM +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Am Montag, den 06.12.2010, 08:46 -0700 schrieb Alan Post:
I selected equal? in this case because the *lists* aren't going to
be pointer-equal, just their contents, and the contents fall into
two distinct classes,
Am Montag, den 06.12.2010, 08:46 -0700 schrieb Alan Post:
I selected equal? in this case because the *lists* aren't going to
be pointer-equal, just their contents, and the contents fall into
two distinct classes, procedures and strings, and the strings won't
be eq? for the same reason the
