Re: [Chicken-users] string-ci<=? and string-ci>=?
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 08:26:49AM +0200, Sven Hartrumpf wrote: > Hi. > > The issue reported by Nils Holm > in http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.scheme/t/6b8be06b84b39a7 > affects chicken 5, too: > > > (string-ci<=? "test" "tes") > #t > > (string-ci>=? "test" "tes") > #f Thanks for reporting this. I've filed a ticket to track this at https://bugs.call-cc.org/ticket/1534 I've assigned it to milestone 5.0 and version 5.0.0rc2 so we don't forget to fix it before releasing 5.0 and it should be in the list of things which changes since 5.0.0rc2. We still should apply it to the chicken-4 branch, so it's included if we ever make a 4.14 version. Cheers, Peter signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] [ANN] CHICKEN 5.0.0 release candidate 2 available
Operating system: Arch Linux Hardware platform: x86-64 C Compiler:GCC 8.2.1 Installation works?: yes Tests work?: yes Installation of eggs works?: yes (matchable and fmt) Cheers, Julius On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 12:37 PM Peter Bex wrote: > Hello all, > > The second release candidate for CHICKEN 5.0.0 is now available for > download: > > http://code.call-cc.org/dev-snapshots/2018/09/09/chicken-5.0.0rc2.tar.gz > > The sha256sum of that tarball is: > > 237c88fcdd0d31f01923d9c5d0e4a564d22cdee98687a4e1daa2bc97d173e460 > > The list of changes since 4.13.0 is available here (which is the > same as that of 5.0.0rc1): > > http://code.call-cc.org/dev-snapshots/2018/09/09/NEWS > > Quite a few issues have been fixed, especially with chicken-install > and quoting (most of those on Windows). For an overview of fixed > tickets since 5.0.0rc1, see the Trac page: > > > http://bugs.call-cc.org/query?status=closed=5.0.0rc1=5.0=status=id=summary=owner=type=priority=component=version=priority > > Please give this new release candidate a try and report your findings > to the mailing list. Here's a suggested test procedure: > > $ make PLATFORM= PREFIX= install check > $ /bin/chicken-install pastiche > > If you can, please let us know the following information about the > environment on which you test the RC: > > Operating system: (e.g., FreeBSD 10.1, Debian 8, Windows 7 mingw-msys) > Hardware platform: (e.g., x86, x86-64, PPC) > C Compiler: (e.g., GCC 4.9.2, clang 3.6) > Installation works?: yes or no > Tests work?: yes or no > Installation of eggs works?: yes or no > > Thanks in advance! > > The CHICKEN Team > ___ > Chicken-users mailing list > Chicken-users@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users > ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] string-ci<=? and string-ci>=?
Hi Vasilij. VS wrote, 2018-09-11 09:26: >> > (string-ci<=? "test" "tes") >> #t >> > (string-ci>=? "test" "tes") >> #f > > This is odd. Here's some source code: > > (set! scheme#string-ci<=? (lambda (s1 s2) > (compare >s1 s2 'string-ci<=? >(lambda (len1 len2 cmp) > (if (eq? cmp 0) > (fx>= len1 len2) > (fx< cmp 0) ) ) ) ) ) > (set! scheme#string-ci>=? (lambda (s1 s2) > (compare >s1 s2 'string-ci>=? >(lambda (len1 len2 cmp) > (if (eq? cmp 0) > (fx<= len1 len2) > (fx> cmp 0) ) ) ) ) ) > > From what I can tell, `cmp` ends up being zero if the `memcmp` called by > `compare` returns zero for both strings, with the smaller length as last > argument. This happens when they share the same prefix, so in this case > you'd run into that branch, then compare `len1` against `len2`. As > `len1` is larger, `string-ci<=?` returns #t. The question is, what > should the correct comparator be here? The line (fx>= len1 len2) should be moved down to scheme#string-ci>=?, and the line (fx<= len1 len2) should be moved to to scheme#string-ci<=? Am I missing something? Ciao Sven ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] string-ci<=? and string-ci>=?
Hey Sven, > > (string-ci<=? "test" "tes") > #t > > (string-ci>=? "test" "tes") > #f This is odd. Here's some source code: (set! scheme#string-ci<=? (lambda (s1 s2) (compare s1 s2 'string-ci<=? (lambda (len1 len2 cmp) (if (eq? cmp 0) (fx>= len1 len2) (fx< cmp 0) ) ) ) ) ) (set! scheme#string-ci>=? (lambda (s1 s2) (compare s1 s2 'string-ci>=? (lambda (len1 len2 cmp) (if (eq? cmp 0) (fx<= len1 len2) (fx> cmp 0) ) ) ) ) ) >From what I can tell, `cmp` ends up being zero if the `memcmp` called by `compare` returns zero for both strings, with the smaller length as last argument. This happens when they share the same prefix, so in this case you'd run into that branch, then compare `len1` against `len2`. As `len1` is larger, `string-ci<=?` returns #t. The question is, what should the correct comparator be here? Vasilij ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] string-ci<=? and string-ci>=?
Hi. The issue reported by Nils Holm in http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.scheme/t/6b8be06b84b39a7 affects chicken 5, too: > (string-ci<=? "test" "tes") #t > (string-ci>=? "test" "tes") #f Ciao Sven ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
