From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Steve Tell Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: 1.5.6: (bound? ) missing from optargs.scm Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 01:40:57 -0500 (EST) Sender: guile-user-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1017384223 25030 127.0.0.1 (29 Mar 2002 06:43:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 06:43:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16qq6w-0006Va-00 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 07:43:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16qq5R-00031a-00; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 01:42:09 -0500 Original-Received: from dsl092-218-026.nyc1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.218.26] helo=telltronics.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16qq4O-0002wX-00 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 01:41:05 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (tell@localhost) by telltronics.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA12464; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 01:40:58 -0500 X-Sender: tell@ariel.lan.telltronics.org Original-To: ttn@glug.org In-Reply-To: Errors-To: guile-user-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.5 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:73 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:73 On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote: > 2001-05-10 Marius Vollmer > > * optargs.scm (bound?): Removed. We should not play games with > the magical undefined value. > > i don't particularly understand what kinds of games are no longer being > played, nor what is the suggested way to achieve prior functionality. > "doc bug" means some kind of blurb explaining these things is due in > NEWS. That helps a little. After a little thought I found an obvious workaround, using the default-value facility. That brings up the question: with this change, when will it ever be useful to _not_ provide a default value for a keyword or optional argument to a procedure built with lambda*? I suppose I can see how a "magical undefined value" could be a bit too much like perl's "undef" for the purists, but this does make lambda*/define* less useful IMHO. Anyway, I am now successfuly building on 1.4 and 1.5.6, with 1.3.4 testing still remaining. I feel like I have to support 1.3.4 until more of the major linux distributions start shipping with 1.4 or later. Steve -- Steve Tell tell@telltronics.org _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user