Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>>>> "Marius" == Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Marius> Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> I'm not convinced. How can people be expecting debugging to be turned > >> on after having explicitly said `(debug-disable 'debug)' in their > >> .guile file? > > Marius> Because Guile behaved like that for quite a while. > > But it's a bug!
Yes, and it is fixed in the non-stable branch. It's too late to fix it in the stable branch. It is too late because I have decided so. I know that this might not be popular, and it comes somewhat as a surprise. I don't do this because I like to be despotic, but because I think it is constructive. 1.6 has been too long in the making. Of course, there is a huge amount of improvements to be made in Guile, but that's why we have the unstable HEAD branch. > Do we say that we don't want to fix `(array? car) => #t)' now because > Guile has behaved this way for a while? Yes, exactly. It wont be fixed in the stable branch. You have say what branch you are talking about. We can certainly attempt to fix it in HEAD, as soon as possible. The fix can be very experimental, even, and we can let it ripe a bit. But we should not do this in the stable branch. Now, the 'debug-disable' fix might be considered simple but since it touches the public behavior of Guile in a common situation, we should just be conservative, even if the existing behavior is considered a bug. > Plus, the behaviour is going to change in 1.8, because someone has > already made a fix in HEAD. Given that it will change, surely it's > better to do sooner. We're not in the middle of a stable release > series yet. We are, effectively. And, the behavior might change again in HEAD until 1.8 comes out. _______________________________________________ Bug-guile mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile