On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 15:14 +0100, Leslie P. Polzer wrote:
> Same for line 171. I wonder what's wrong?
>
I don't know why the patch didn't hash, but I was simply mistaken in not
seeing that 171 is the same; I must have gone to the wrong line number
or something. I apologize for the confusion.
I
Dear Robert,
> hunk ./src/elephant/unicode2.lisp 131
> - (let ((code (char-code (schar string i
> + (let ((code (char-code (char string i
> hunk ./src/elephant/unicode2.lisp 171
> - (let ((code (char-code (schar string i
> +
Dear Leslie,
In attempting to apply the second of your three patches
(unicode2.patch), darcs says:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] elephant]$ darcs apply ../unicode2.patch
darcs failed: Patch bundle failed hash!
This probably means that the patch has been corrupted by a mailer.
The most likely culpri
Thanks!
I'm about to leave town, but should be able to review and commit this by
next Wednesday.
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 10:13 +0100, Leslie P. Polzer wrote:
> > However, I wonder if it possible for you to turn whatever made you
> > notice it into a test-case? It is possible that this bug exis
> However, I wonder if it possible for you to turn whatever made you
> notice it into a test-case? It is possible that this bug exists on the
> LISP you are using and not mine, but in any case we should use each such
> bug as an opportunity to expand the suite of automated tests.
It was har
Dear Leslie,
Thanks for this patch.
However, I wonder if it possible for you to turn whatever made you
notice it into a test-case? It is possible that this bug exists on the
LISP you are using and not mine, but in any case we should use each such
bug as an opportunity to expand th
On Feb 20, 2008, at 11:36 AM, Leslie P. Polzer wrote:
I don't know whether it was a change in Elephant, SBCL or even
somewhere
else that introduced problems with the Unicode serializer, but the fix
is very small (changed two calls to SCHAR to CHAR) and should probably
be applied ASAP.
I'm
