Re: [Chicken-hackers] bit-set? is inconsistently specified

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 04:22 +0200, Thomas Chust wrote:
> 2009/8/4 Thomas Bushnell BSG <address@hidden>:
> > I think this argument is fallacious.  Chicken Scheme is not consistent
> > in using the data-structure order (alist-ref, alist-update!, rassoc,
> > compress, tail?) and also has cases where it should use the currying
> > order but doesn't.
> 
> Hello,
> 
> that's a valid point. Probably "tradition" is the reason for most of
> these cases.

Is "tradition" not a sufficient reason for our bit-set? to match common
lisp and every other Scheme?  (Or is there some other Scheme which uses
Chicken's version?)

> That doesn't mean that aiming for greater portability is bad, but
> complete portability in all areas can probably not be achieved. And I
> would not expect completely incompatible API changes in the same
> Scheme implementation unless the major version number is bumped.

Agreed. With agreement about the ultimate direction, I have no objection
to a lengthy process of getting there.

Thomas