Hi Peter, I have pushed your patch and dropped the C_i_ prefix from the internal helper procedure as discussed on #chicken.
> PS: shouldn't C_i_finitep actually be called C_u_i_finitep? > It's obviously unsafe (pass it any non-fixnum immediate and it'll > probably blow up). I think so too, this definitely belongs to another patch. Other opinions? Thanks, Christian -- 9 out of 10 voices in my head say, that I am crazy, one is humming. _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
