On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Peter Bex 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
Hi all,
I've discussed #1385 with Felix, and after some consideration we agreed
the lesser of three evils is to rename the procedure to something
completely nonstandard. Swapping the argument order in CHICKEN 5 will
almost certainly introduce insidious bugs when porting existing programs
from
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 09:46:19PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote:
> Per Felix and Peter's recent proposal.
>
> That post also mentions an "error-message" procedure that should be
> moved, but I'm not sure what that refers to so haven't included it (is
> that possibly a mistake, or maybe something that