Re: possible bug in srfi-19 implementation (fix included)
Joost Helberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If not, can you fix it? :-) Not necessary. Ok, thanks! Is there a way to extend srfi-19, or to make up a new one? I hope so. I'm not really familiar with the SRFI process, but it looks like you need to start a new SRFI to bugfix an existing final one. -- GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405 ___ Bug-guile mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
Re: possible bug in srfi-19 implementation (fix included)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:03:19 +0200 (define (mydatetoweeknumber dt) [...]) Is my solution acceptable? If not, is there anyone who can implement a better solution? looks like your solution codifies ISO-8601, but srfi-19 does not specify ISO-8601. if it is possible to implement a date-week-number-ISO-8601 using srfi-19 date-week-number (perhaps by providing an appropriate second arg to date-week-number), it would be good to include that as an example in the documentation. would you like to try this approach? this is a separate issue from whether or not guile's (srfi srfi-19) date-week-number implementation fulfills the srfi-19 specification. i see there is no test for that in test-suite/tests/srfi-19.test. would you like to write one? thi ___ Bug-guile mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
