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: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 13:27:59 -0700 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <87wuuyl1qj.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <20020425090914.GA19031@www> <20020425100254.GC19024@www> <87662bn79b.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> Reply-To: ttn@glug.org NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1020026038 7039 127.0.0.1 (28 Apr 2002 20:33:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 20:33:58 +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 171vMs-0001pQ-00 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 22:33:58 +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 171vMM-0007lN-00; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 16:33:26 -0400 Original-Received: from ca-crlsbd-u5-c4a-a-172.crlsca.adelphia.net ([24.48.214.172] helo=giblet) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 171vL0-0007De-00; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 16:32:02 -0400 Original-Received: from ttn by giblet with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 171vH5-0005W6-00; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 13:27:59 -0700 Original-To: mvo@zagadka.ping.de In-Reply-To: <87662bn79b.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> (message from Marius Vollmer on 28 Apr 2002 18:00:00 +0200) 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:550 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:550 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. remember to cover the case where an arg may be bound and have a (internally consistent) value of #f. i.e., whether or not an arg is bound is indepdendent of its value. thi _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel