From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: implicitly using existing function as generic fails in 1.9 Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 11:32:54 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1296655370.19670.270.camel@vuurvlieg> <1297450386.2325.263.camel@vuurvlieg> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1297506504 14818 80.91.229.12 (12 Feb 2011 10:28:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 10:28:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel To: Jan Nieuwenhuizen Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 12 11:28:19 2011 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PoCi8-0008Gr-Cw for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 11:28:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59662 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PoCi6-0003q4-G7 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 05:28:14 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37479 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PoCi0-0003oq-FV for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 05:28:09 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PoChz-00035I-1R for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 05:28:08 -0500 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:62958 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PoChy-00033o-Sy for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 05:28:06 -0500 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 179A62E46; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 05:29:04 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=HQKoBBS8Ht2ddLgYluXHkxBTctk=; b=RbZqsk VfSr0bXunfy0UNYXw/j5FLc/AjpX8b0EkGpS/dNlmZVtfe8j/YQmSfvuQsFJ5pTI XnskVaZWpWSC+qZa4LNmCdOfxO1ZZ9ZwI56l5zoqDtrDBMprRc3FRs5D9vDzMfhH AACvO5wij1tATxFnkyJVEwQVt1eiAXspnR4XI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=rwaeosgClJpC6cYQ6wWRMshii6TufdBt cChgRD+13ElY4Ab/7I3byZ5fH1PTvAAqxSM87GTs5k8U/sPR9qWclFHBsMMU0UB2 biDsKFPREU7hhMy7DUF90DIvKReZWU34s8YlvCNR/lwf5qPHXixwM4Meb+AqkcPK 8GYcBRzSAGE= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0042B2E45; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 05:29:02 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from unquote.localdomain (unknown [90.164.198.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 29A582E44; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 05:29:00 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <1297450386.2325.263.camel@vuurvlieg> (Jan Nieuwenhuizen's message of "Fri, 11 Feb 2011 19:53:06 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: E95C7B7A-3692-11E0-8FB8-AF401E47CF6F-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 64.74.157.62 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:11567 Archived-At: On Fri 11 Feb 2011 19:53, Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes: > I'm attaching the individual files; this works with 1.8.7: Right, I saw your files, and they do work with 1.8.7; I was just trying to figure out what the difference is. I suspect it's merge-generics related. >> I don't understand what's going on here, really. Do you? > > No, and if you say it's not supported, I'll just have to > choose other names for those functions. No, I think you've found a bug here, please don't give up so easily :) Andy -- http://wingolog.org/