From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mark H Weaver Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: bug#17474: Ping? Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 15:12:20 -0400 Message-ID: <874mxkrwff.fsf@yeeloong.lan> References: <87r43zuswp.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87bnru81ke.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1407698066 10896 80.91.229.3 (10 Aug 2014 19:14:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 19:14:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 17474@debbugs.gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 10 21:14:18 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-bugs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XGYZN-00068J-M9 for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 21:14:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60715 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XGYZM-0003ne-Rd for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 15:14:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50522) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XGYZE-0003mf-8N for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 15:14:14 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XGYZ8-0006QH-97 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 15:14:08 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:59283) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XGYZ8-0006QC-5d for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 15:14:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XGYZ7-0002uX-Sb for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 15:14:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Mark H Weaver Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guile@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 19:14:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17474 X-GNU-PR-Package: guile X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 17474-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17474.140769799611125 (code B ref 17474); Sun, 10 Aug 2014 19:14:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 17474) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Aug 2014 19:13:16 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37993 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XGYYN-0002tN-JA for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 15:13:15 -0400 Original-Received: from world.peace.net ([96.39.62.75]:40661 ident=hope4) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XGYYL-0002tE-6N for 17474@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 15:13:13 -0400 Original-Received: from c-24-62-95-23.hsd1.ma.comcast.net ([24.62.95.23] helo=yeeloong.lan) by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1XGYYE-0000vz-Ns; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 15:13:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87bnru81ke.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (David Kastrup's message of "Sat, 09 Aug 2014 11:17:05 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:7531 Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: > Three months after its original submission with a working patch series, > this issue is not going anywhere for no discernible reason. As I've already said, I'm strongly opposed to your patch series. Rigging the core procedure call mechanisms to automatically convert between a single value of SCM_UNDEFINED and zero values is terrible, for multiple reasons. It muddies the semantics and adds overhead to a mechanism that needs to be as simple and lightweight as we can possibly make it, especially when we move to native code generation. Mark