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.devel Subject: Re: Items blocking release 1.6.1 (2002-04-21) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:05:15 -0700 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: ttn@glug.org NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1019506345 10210 127.0.0.1 (22 Apr 2002 20:12:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 20:12:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 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 16zkAj-0002eZ-00 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 22:12:25 +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 16zkAU-0005R9-00; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:12:10 -0400 Original-Received: from ca-crlsbd-u4-c4c-174.crlsca.adelphia.net ([68.66.186.174] helo=giblet) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16zk7j-0005FS-00; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:09:20 -0400 Original-Received: from ttn by giblet with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16zk3n-00006F-00; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:05:15 -0700 Original-To: mvo@zagadka.ping.de In-Reply-To: message from Marius Vollmer on 22 Apr 2002 20:44:36 +0200 Original-References: 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:452 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:452 From: Marius Vollmer Date: 22 Apr 2002 20:44:36 +0200 [ice-9/optargs.scm bound? removal] Ok, I'll looker closer into this, and I now have to say that we can't 'fix' it. We would be changing the default default value from '#f' to something else. That would be an unacceptable interface change. but removing `bound?' is acceptable? Since it is easy for the user to provide the functionality on its own, we can just leave it as it is. to provide out of band info, you can use out of band methods (in fact, this is the fix i thought you were going to consider). cc'ing guile-user to see who complains (besides me). maybe someone can send a patch to do a clean fix, and explain it. maybe it's time to fork guile (again). thi _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel