On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Peter Bex <pe...@more-magic.net> 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 co...@ccil.org 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"
_______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
