Re: [PATCH] Document pitfalls with `define-class' and `#:init-value'

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > > Then perhaps the example > that follows is just too much, too trivial. Is it what you mean? Yes. (But fortunately I'm not the final arbiter, so if perhaps Mikael thinks otherwise then it could yet get go in :-) ___

Re: Exposing `scm_i_mem2number ()'

Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > libguile/ > > 2006-02-16 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * numbers.c (scm_i_mem2number): Renamed to > `scm_c_locale_string_to_number ()'. > Updated callers. > > * numbers.h: Updated function declaration. > >

Re: [PATCH] Document pitfalls with `define-class' and `#:init-value'

Hi, Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That bit sounds fair, I it in. I think the rest labours the point a > little. Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. > Hopefully seeing init-thunk and init-form described is > enough. I think the [EMAIL PROTECTED] across all new instances