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 17:48:09 -0400 Message-ID: <87zjfcqana.fsf@yeeloong.lan> References: <87r43zuswp.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87bnru81ke.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <874mxkrwff.fsf@yeeloong.lan> <87vbq05bw8.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1407707425 7736 80.91.229.3 (10 Aug 2014 21:50:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 21:50:25 +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 23:50:18 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 1XGb0K-0001vX-4T for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 23:50:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:32844 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XGb0J-0006yb-Ey for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 17:50:15 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39151) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XGb0C-0006w1-7L for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 17:50:13 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XGb06-00089w-Rl for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 17:50:08 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:59360) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XGb06-00089K-OV for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 17:50:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XGb06-0007xd-99 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 17:50:02 -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 21:50:02 +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=B17474.140770735630540 (code B ref 17474); Sun, 10 Aug 2014 21:50:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 17474) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Aug 2014 21:49:16 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38070 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XGazM-0007wV-8y for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 17:49:16 -0400 Original-Received: from world.peace.net ([96.39.62.75]:40753 ident=hope5) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XGazJ-0007wJ-IY for 17474@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 17:49:14 -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 1XGaz4-0001H0-DT; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 17:48:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87vbq05bw8.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (David Kastrup's message of "Sun, 10 Aug 2014 22:26:47 +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:7533 Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: > Mark H Weaver writes: > >> 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. > > Is this a typo or do you really think that we are talking about > SCM_UNDEFINED here? It was a typo. I meant SCM_UNSPECIFIED. Anyway, I don't have time now to continue arguing with you about this issue. Sorry. Mark