I don't consider the changes to be major, because they're transparent when using a system with correctly-working macros. The Ypsilon issue was previously there with two libraries but not more because the framework's facilities were not being used consistently because of how I organized older additions versus newer ones. I'm not going to act like changes are incompatible or problematic when the only problem is a system's bugs.
-- : Derick ---------------------------------------------------------------- On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Eduardo Cavazos <[email protected]> wrote: > Derick, > > Just a suggestion. If you're planning on making major changes to the > SRFI repository, maybe put them in a branch. Once the branch is > available ask us to test that branch. This way, we'll all have a good > idea about what's coming down the pipe and can better prepare and > perhaps discuss the changes as a community. > > Ed > > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Derick Eddington > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 06:06 -0600, Eduardo Cavazos wrote: >>> Derick, >>> >>> Here's what I'm getting when I load SRFI-1 in Ypsilon: >>> >>> ~ $ rlwrap ypsilon >>> Ypsilon 0.9.6-trunk/r503 Copyright (c) 2009 Y.Fujita, LittleWing Company >>> Limited. >>> > (import (srfi :1)) >>> >>> error in define: attempt to modify immutable binding >>> > (define (cons* first . rest) >>> (let recur ((x first) (rest rest)) >>> (if (pair? rest) (cons x (recur (car rest) (cdr rest))) x))) >>> ..."/home/dharmatech/scheme/srfi/%3a1/lists.sls" >> >> Yeah, I know about that. It's Ypsilon's bug, related to: >> http://code.google.com/p/ypsilon/issues/detail?id=128 >> >> -- >> : Derick >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >
