From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thien-Thi Nguyen Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: Re: possible bug in srfi-19 implementation (fix included) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:36:47 -0700 Sender: bug-guile-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <20020927120319.A4014E2BE0F@tejo.snow.nl> Reply-To: ttn@glug.org NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1033166786 14249 127.0.0.1 (27 Sep 2002 22:46:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 22:46:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-guile@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17v3sP-0003hh-00 for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 00:46:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17v3sb-0000o6-00; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 18:46:37 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17v3rv-0000mr-00 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 18:45:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17v3rn-0000mL-00 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 18:45:54 -0400 Original-Received: from ca-crlsca-cuda3-c6a-b-211.crlsca.adelphia.net ([68.71.15.211] helo=giblet) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17v3rn-0000mB-00 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 18:45:47 -0400 Original-Received: from ttn by giblet with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17v3j5-0006Eq-00; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:36:47 -0700 Original-To: joost@snow.nl In-reply-to: <20020927120319.A4014E2BE0F@tejo.snow.nl> (joost@snow.nl) Errors-To: bug-guile-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:481 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:481 From: joost@snow.nl Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:03:19 +0200 (define (mydatetoweeknumber dt) [...]) Is my solution acceptable? If not, is there anyone who can implement a better solution? looks like your solution codifies ISO-8601, but srfi-19 does not specify ISO-8601. if it is possible to implement a "date-week-number-ISO-8601" using srfi-19 date-week-number (perhaps by providing an appropriate second arg to date-week-number), it would be good to include that as an example in the documentation. would you like to try this approach? this is a separate issue from whether or not guile's (srfi srfi-19) date-week-number implementation fulfills the srfi-19 specification. i see there is no test for that in test-suite/tests/srfi-19.test. would you like to write one? thi _______________________________________________ Bug-guile mailing list Bug-guile@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile