From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: complex number reader bug? Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:07:24 +0100 Message-ID: <873a9g1atv.fsf@arudy.ossau.uklinux.net> References: <20081018194523.M24362@ccrma.Stanford.EDU> <87prcljkp4.fsf@arudy.ossau.uklinux.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1246475295 11097 80.91.229.12 (1 Jul 2009 19:08:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 19:08:15 +0000 (UTC) To: Guile Development Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 01 21:08:08 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MM5A8-0007zL-J9 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:08:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41813 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MM5A8-00007T-12 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:08:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MM59Z-0007dn-1U for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:07:33 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MM59U-0007WR-Cl for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:07:32 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41122 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MM59U-0007Vp-4f for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:07:28 -0400 Original-Received: from mail3.uklinux.net ([80.84.72.33]:38437) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MM59T-00088w-Mn for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:07:27 -0400 Original-Received: from arudy (host86-152-99-133.range86-152.btcentralplus.com [86.152.99.133]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C04A41F67B3 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 20:07:25 +0100 (BST) Original-Received: from arudy.ossau.uklinux.net (arudy [127.0.0.1]) by arudy (Postfix) with ESMTP id D237238021 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 20:07:24 +0100 (BST) In-Reply-To: <87prcljkp4.fsf@arudy.ossau.uklinux.net> (Neil Jerram's message of "Wed\, 01 Jul 2009 01\:44\:39 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:8816 Archived-At: Neil Jerram writes: > Below is a patch for review. It was an interesting problem, as I > haven't gone very far into Guile's number handling code before. I've pushed this to master too, and that raises two points about the organization of master's NEWS. Firstly, now that 1.9.0 has been released, I'm not sure it makes sense for 1.9.x NEWS to refer to `Changes in 1.8.x' for x >= 7. It seems more natural for NEWS to refer to actual releases in chronological order, so I think the right thing would be for - `Changes in 1.9.0 (changes since the 1.8.x series)' to be renamed `Changes in 1.9.0 (changes since 1.8.6)' - all of the `Changes in 1.8.7 (since 1.8.6)' items to be merged into `Changes in 1.9.0 (changes since 1.8.6)'. Secondly, are we going to retain the distinctions between the 1.9.x releases, once 2.0 is released? I would guess yes, because I see no point in discarding information that might be useful. If so, note that it's worth taking care to get the right place when adding a missing NEWS item for something that was already in a previous release - which I think is a good thing to do, so that the 1.8.x - 2.0 NEWS is as complete as possible. I.e. if we now find something that should have been in the NEWS for 1.9.0, we retrospectively insert it into the `Changes in 1.9.0 (changes since 1.8.6)' section, and not into `Changes in 1.9.1 (changes since 1.9.0)'. Does that all sound right? (If it does, I will need to move the NEWS for this complex number fix to `Changes in 1.9.1 (changes since 1.9.0)'.) Regards, Neil