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

[Thomas Chust]

2009/8/4 Thomas Bushnell BSG <address@hidden>:
> [...]
> 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?)
> [...]

Hello,

some research shows that the SRFI-60 argument order of bit-set? can
also be found in SLIB and Gambit while the CHICKEN argument order can
also be found in R6RS and PLT Scheme (where the procedure is called
bitwise-bit-set?).

Maybe it would be wise to change bit-set? to the SRFI-60 argument
order and add an R6RS compliant bitwise-bit-set? with the existing
argument order in the long term.

cu,
Thomas


-- 
When C++ is your hammer, every problem looks like your thumb.