Re: [Chicken-hackers] Proposal / patch for fixing #1385 (swapped bit-set? argument order)

[Kooda]

Sounds like the best thing to do.

Applied. :)

___
Chicken-hackers mailing list
Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Proposal / patch for fixing #1385 (swapped bit-set? argument order)

[John Cowan]

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Peter Bex  wrote:

Renaming it to a completely nonstandard name should make it easy to port,
>

I think this is the Right Thing.


> and later on (CHICKEN 5.1 or even 5.2) we can re-introduce the bit-set?
> procedure with the correct argument order, and deprecate the new procedure.
>

I would say: don't even bother bringing bit-set? back in a Chicken package.
  If you want or need it, import it from srfi-33, srfi-60, or (latest and
greatest) srfi-151, all of which use (bit-set? index i).


> The name of the nonstandard procedure is not very relevant since it is
> going to disappear anyway, but I think bit->boolean is a relatively clean
> name.


I agree.

-- 
John Cowan  http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
C'est la` pourtant que se livre le sens du dire, de ce que, s'y conjuguant
le nyania qui bruit des sexes en compagnie, il supplee a ce qu'entre eux,
de rapport nyait pas.   --Jacques Lacan, "L'Etourdit"
___
Chicken-hackers mailing list
Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers