Re: Immutable rnrs hashtable

["Sjoerd van Leent Privé" <svanleent@gmail.com>]

Hi Ian,

The implementation is okay, I wrote a half baked example, as I 
understood the bit to be the mutable field. But it should act in 
reverse. Got it. In many cases, I use info-lookup-symbol in Guile's 
documentation, as it is much easier to navigate than the RNRS website 
(which I consider bad design, as there is no sensible hierarchy 
whatsoever or something of a decent index).

This is why I got it wrong, as the documentation was mistaken, and I did 
the opposite of what I should be doing. And yes, I was using #t and #f, 
But I expected the results to be the other way around.

Btw, isn't their a hashtable which is more pure in it's implementation? 
The RNRS and SRFI-69 versions are having quite some side-effects. I 
would have expected a method like "hashtable-add" which copies an 
existing hashtable, adds values and returns a new hashtable. I know, I 
prefer pure functional implementations...

Sjoerd

On 11/26/2012 02:25 AM, Ian Price wrote:
> Whoops, in my haste, I forgot to note that this _is_ a bug in guile's
> documentation, not in the implementation. Suggested fix included.
>
> Ludovic, Andy:
> Should I add him to THANKS too?
>