From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Bruce Korb Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Guile: What's wrong with this? Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:30:13 -0800 Message-ID: <4F04C4E5.9090901@gmail.com> References: <4F027F35.5020001@gmail.com> <1325603029.22166.YahooMailNeo@web37906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4F032C41.3070300@gmail.com> <877h17hjj2.fsf@netris.org> <1325687351.71432.YahooMailNeo@web37906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <874nwbs9c4.fsf@pobox.com> <87ty4bfheq.fsf@netris.org> <87sjjvpav1.fsf@pobox.com> <87lipnfeqy.fsf@netris.org> <87fwfvp82u.fsf@pobox.com> <4F04B1A7.60003@gmail.com> <87ty4bnq5a.fsf@pobox.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1325712628 25338 80.91.229.12 (4 Jan 2012 21:30:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 21:30:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Mark H Weaver , guile-devel@gnu.org To: Andy Wingo Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 04 22:30:24 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RiYPf-0006v7-2V for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 22:30:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34311 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiYPe-0006Lk-Ia for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:30:22 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:38021) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiYPb-0006LR-8C for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:30:20 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiYPa-0005Rd-5E for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:30:19 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-iy0-f169.google.com ([209.85.210.169]:39018) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiYPZ-0005RY-Vn for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:30:18 -0500 Original-Received: by iacb35 with SMTP id b35so36604085iac.0 for ; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:30:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qXNK87zCHAl7y5XwfyCH7YqYILmknkMDsMoT7cQMkTw=; b=Y0s5TFS+EDQKiEo3UqsIwl9Iz7h1rNY2z+IAI3zYhIoP/+wPvsjmQDRC85tC44QICF v3ncimmalthrnlaXKfuraocjxJOChxcY/V84b9SFn6Elaxe8Ua3mz8QyZo1H6XhgqN/1 aIUaZdZFOQjLYwBShS0DNnlcdbJwD8WR8BQIY= Original-Received: by 10.42.189.5 with SMTP id dc5mr57948588icb.51.1325712616958; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:30:16 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [10.0.0.2] (adsl-75-0-186-252.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net. [75.0.186.252]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z22sm193456776ibg.5.2012.01.04.13.30.15 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:30:16 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111220 Thunderbird/9.0 In-Reply-To: <87ty4bnq5a.fsf@pobox.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.210.169 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:13301 Archived-At: On 01/04/12 12:56, Andy Wingo wrote: > On Wed 04 Jan 2012 15:08, Bruce Korb writes: > >> On 01/04/12 11:43, Andy Wingo wrote: >>> The correct behavior is the status quo. We are considering adding a >>> hack to produce different behavior for compatibility purposes. We don't >>> have to worry about correctness in that case, only compatibility. IMO >>> anyway :) >> >> It would be a nice added benefit if it worked as one would expect. > > I think that in this case, your expectations are just incorrect. I > don't mean this rudely. I think you will be happier and more productive > if you change your expectations in this regard to better match "reality" > (the state of things, common practice, conventional Scheme wisdom, etc). Going forward, yes, sure, like the pointer aliasing thing. It was just never an issue with the original C model and it became such later. In this case, expectations were built upon perl and shell scripting models, and it seemed to work that way. In any case, the specific problem that actually triggered this whole thread was that scm_from_locale_string seems to be returning a reference to an immutable string (unexpected) *AND* the string-upcase function is objecting to it (also unexpected). Otherwise, I'd have gone on oblivious to any sort of issue. :) Cheers - Bruce