bug-guile
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[bug #12994] Bug in guile's array-map! transforming single array


From: anonymous
Subject: [bug #12994] Bug in guile's array-map! transforming single array
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 20:40:33 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)

URL:
  <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=12994>

                 Summary: Bug in guile's array-map! transforming single array
                 Project: Guile
            Submitted by: None
            Submitted on: Thu 05/05/2005 at 16:40
                Category: None
                Severity: 3 - Normal
              Item Group: None
                  Status: None
                 Privacy: Public
             Assigned to: None
             Open/Closed: Open

    _______________________________________________________

Details:

Hello,

I have been using Guile with Cygwin for a while, and with pleasure; recently
I tried upgrading from version 1.6.4 to 1.6.5,
but with the new version some of my scripts do not work any more.
The problem appears to be with array-map!.
When I apply it to a single array to do a simple calculation,
it complains that "At least one source array is required.",
for instance, when I do
  (define a #(1 2 3 4 5 6))
  (define (sqr x) (* x x))
  (array-map! a sqr a)
I used to get (in Guile 1.6.4):
  1 4 9 16 25 36
but in Guile 1.6.5 it no longer works, I get the error message.
The cause of this seems to be a change in ./libguile/ramap.c;
The first few lines used to read:
  {
    SCM_VALIDATE_PROC (2,proc);
    SCM_VALIDATE_REST_ARGUMENT (lra);
    switch (SCM_TYP7 (proc))
But in 1.6.5, this has been changed to:
  {
    SCM_VALIDATE_PROC (2,proc);

    if (!(SCM_CONSP (sources) && SCM_CONSP (SCM_CDR (sources))))
      {
        SCM_MISC_ERROR ("At least one source array is required.", SCM_EOL);
      }

    switch (SCM_TYP7 (proc))
Why is this?  Surely the invocation with a single array 
was a useful thing to be able to do?  
Is there a deeper reason for the second SCM_CONSP?  Or can we get rid of it?

Best regards,
Mischa







    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=12994>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]