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

[John Cowan]

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Peter Bex <address@hidden> wrote:

Renaming it to a completely nonstandard name should make it easy to port,

I think this is the Right Thing.

 

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.

I would say: don't even bother bringing bit-set? back in a Chicken package.   If you want or need it, import it from srfi-33, srfi-60, or (latest and greatest) srfi-151, all of which use (bit-set? index i).

 

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.

I agree.

-- 

John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        address@hidden

C'est la` pourtant que se livre le sens du dire, de ce que, s'y conjuguant

le nyania qui bruit des sexes en compagnie, il supplee a ce qu'entre eux,

de rapport nyait pas.               --Jacques Lacan, "L'Etourdit"