From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Marius Vollmer Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Items blocking release 1.6.1 (2002-04-21) Date: 07 May 2002 20:43:23 +0200 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <873cx3lrxw.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> References: <87wuuyl1qj.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <20020425090914.GA19031@www> <20020425100254.GC19024@www> <87662bn79b.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1020799103 11946 127.0.0.1 (7 May 2002 19:18:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 19:18:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rm@fabula.de, tomas@fabula.de, rlb@defaultvalue.org, guile-devel@gnu.org, guile-user@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 175ATf-00036R-00 for ; Tue, 07 May 2002 21:18:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 175ATG-0002Nv-00; Tue, 07 May 2002 15:17:58 -0400 Original-Received: from dialin.speedway42.dip59.dokom.de ([195.138.42.59] helo=zagadka.ping.de) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1759vo-0000Ec-00 for ; Tue, 07 May 2002 14:43:24 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 3735 invoked by uid 1000); 7 May 2002 18:43:23 -0000 Original-To: ttn@glug.org In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 18 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:584 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:584 Thien-Thi Nguyen writes: > From: Marius Vollmer > Date: 28 Apr 2002 18:00:00 +0200 > > Yes, of course. The quibbling is over the default default value, > i.e. the value to use as a default value when no default value has > been specified explicitely. > > no the quibbling is over removal of `bound?' (see summary field in the > bug report). if you can expand the problem-solving process to solve > this (original) problem, that would be best. Yes, right. I would propose to follow Common Lisp here: (define* (foo :optional (bar #f bar-bound?)) (if bar-bound? ...)) _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel