[Chicken-hackers] Proposal / patch for fixing #1385 (swapped bit-set? argument order)

[Peter Bex]

Hi all,

I've discussed #1385 with Felix, and after some consideration we agreed
the lesser of three evils is to rename the procedure to something
completely nonstandard.  Swapping the argument order in CHICKEN 5 will
almost certainly introduce insidious bugs when porting existing programs
from CHICKEN 4 or from other Schemes.  And keeping the argument order is
bad too, because we will pay the price for having a nonstandard argument
order for the rest of all time.

Keeping the old procedure and adding a new one just moves the problem of
how to rectify this into the future, so that's not an option either.
Renaming it to a completely nonstandard name should make it easy to port,
and later on (CHICKEN 5.1 or even 5.2) we can re-introduce the bit-set?
procedure with the correct argument order, and deprecate the new procedure.

The name of the nonstandard procedure is not very relevant since it is
going to disappear anyway, but I think bit->boolean is a relatively clean
name.  Luckily, core itself doesn't use bit-set? anywhere, so we can
just rename it with impunity, no need to keep the OBSOLETE name around.

If nobody disagrees, let's get this over with!

Cheers,
Peter

0001-Rename-bit-set-to-bit-boolean-to-avoid-confusion-fix.patch
Description: Text Data

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature