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

[Kon Lovett]

On Aug 4, 2009, at 3:05 AM, Thomas Chust wrote:

> 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.

There is one. See the 'err5rs-arithmetic' 4 egg.

> cu,
> Thomas
>
>
> --
> When C++ is your hammer, every problem looks like your thumb.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chicken-hackers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers

Best Wishes,
Kon