From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Errors using Guile 2.0 vs. Guile 1.8 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:06:22 +0100 Message-ID: <87vcntwitt.fsf@pobox.com> References: <1327852458.3401.10.camel@homebase> <87ty3ejgbx.fsf@netris.org> <87lioqjevm.fsf@netris.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1327921607 10975 80.91.229.3 (30 Jan 2012 11:06:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:06:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org To: Mark H Weaver Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 30 12:06:46 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Rrp4N-0007gN-9f for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:06:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51153 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rrp4M-0004Tp-LV for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 06:06:42 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:46136) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rrp4D-0004TG-Mj for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 06:06:38 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rrp47-00035q-Cg for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 06:06:33 -0500 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([74.115.168.62]:61117 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rrp47-00035m-6A; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 06:06:27 -0500 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D72D7BF2; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 06:06:27 -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=uIygWqs4KU/+6BkeQZNgDiZ+/og=; b=goULl7 M5IIl6JhTPZhv8OSK3pysyVDQdF+clcqKXFJXX76DmJHAO1/0SEkJaAw+Ck6froI 6bD0mr/jE7whDIUgxUy8+Y6CldAfWvEQJNaa8yYGBnFa/RcxumjmsWiz5TEmw6X3 nuDDSa2mbqQqje8NnTLGG7rM1xBR+90SjP2bo= 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=B6M1gRn9BPXOwZrfhmiZf5rTtV9cLIzY QE82m5a+vxgdhbblqAez4n4HOIGxBo46jbzvR2XrOMsyLRU/AttGw/rksyYkTwzK svKrd6tUIIpJ1V9RNMJjo/oTlVlDnFV8ymsZbCJMq3pBKf/JvASpPkyLOB2Tr7vo vzny9br+UXQ= 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 06FF77BE8; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 06:06:27 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [90.163.36.89]) (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 6488B7BE7; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 06:06:26 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87lioqjevm.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:57:49 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 7412251C-4B32-11E1-877B-65B1DE995924-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 74.115.168.62 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:9217 Archived-At: On Sun 29 Jan 2012 23:57, Mark H Weaver writes: > Replying to myself... > >> The relevant difference is that in Guile 1.8, (define foo ...) returns >> #, but in Guile 2 it returns the 'variable' object for >> 'foo'. > > I actually think that this qualifies as a bug in Guile, so please don't > depend on this behavior. Ideally, (define foo ...) should always return > #, and I hope we can fix that in 2.0.4. Thanks for tracking this one down, Mark. Andy -- http://wingolog.org/