From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com>
To: Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz>
Cc: 71300@debbugs.gnu.org, "Filip Łajszczak" <filip@lajszczak.dev>,
"Maxime Devos" <maximedevos@telenet.be>
Subject: bug#71300: [PATCH v4] doc: Document SRFI 64.
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 22:35:44 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87r096edvz.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <877cb3hnvr.fsf@wolfsden.cz> (Tomas Volf's message of "Sun, 22 Sep 2024 14:30:16 +0200")
Hi Tomas,
Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz> writes:
> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> This is an import of the 'Abstract', 'Rationale', and 'Specification'
>> sections from the upstream specification text, with some manual
>> adjustment.
>>
>> * doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi (SRFI 64): New subsection.
>
> I think important question to ask here is whether this manual section
> documents SRFI-64 or what Guile ships as SRFI-64. Current
> implementation shipped by Guile has many quirks that do not conform to
> the specification.
>
>> +@c This SRFI 64 documentation was "snarfed" from upstream specification
>> +@c HTML document using the 'snarfi' script.
>
> Based on this I believe it describes the specification.
That's correct. It's been slightly modified in places where it said
things like "left to the implementation" and I was able to verify what
the current implementation in Guix does.
> I think either of those is fine (albeit describing the Guile's flavor
> would be preferred), but is should be stated (that the behavior
There's not really a Guile flavor; it's more like the reference
implementation flavor ;-). The one in Guile is pretty stock.
> described by the manual does not match the implementation shipped).
I'd consider different behavior in the implementation compared to the
specification bugs.
--
Thanks,
Maxim
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-26 13:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-01 2:17 bug#71300: [PATCH v3] doc: Document SRFI 64 Maxim Cournoyer
2024-09-15 4:25 ` bug#71300: [PATCH v4] " Maxim Cournoyer
2024-09-22 10:14 ` bug#71300: [PATCH v3] " Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide via Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language
2024-09-22 12:30 ` bug#71300: [PATCH v4] " Tomas Volf
2024-09-26 13:35 ` Maxim Cournoyer [this message]
2024-09-26 19:15 ` Taylan Kammer
2024-09-29 19:43 ` Maxime Devos via Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language
2024-09-30 11:39 ` Taylan Kammer
2024-10-02 7:11 ` Maxim Cournoyer
2024-10-23 0:29 ` bug#71300: [PATCH v3] " Tomas Volf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87r096edvz.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com \
--cc=71300@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=filip@lajszczak.dev \
--cc=maximedevos@telenet.be \
--cc=~@wolfsden.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).