The R5RS deviations link points to the Chicken 3 docs. John Cowan
recently updated the deviations section of the Chicken 4 docs. See
http://chicken.wiki.br/man/4/Deviations%20from%20the%20standard
On Mon, 2009-08-31 at 22:39 +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've compiled a list of all the
Peter Bex scripsit:
> > > About the srfi-72; it's not part of Chicken 4, but if I understand you
> > > correctly, Chicken 3 supports it. Is it correct to remove it from the
> > > page altogether, then?
> >
> > If you look at the egg page, it says that the implementation is not
> > supported.
>
>
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 06:04:46PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Peter Bex scripsit:
>
> > About the srfi-72; it's not part of Chicken 4, but if I understand you
> > correctly, Chicken 3 supports it. Is it correct to remove it from the
> > page altogether, then?
>
> If you look at the egg page, it s
Peter Bex scripsit:
> About the srfi-72; it's not part of Chicken 4, but if I understand you
> correctly, Chicken 3 supports it. Is it correct to remove it from the
> page altogether, then?
If you look at the egg page, it says that the implementation is not
supported. Apparently the upstream mai
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 05:45:01PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> SRFI-88 is now in the documentation, although (use srfi-88) still fails.
> It needs to be added to the built-in features list.
>
> SRFI-22 is not supported; Chicken allows the hash-bang syntax, but does
> not provide any of the standard
Peter Bex scripsit:
> Please correct any omissions or mistakes I might have made. Perhaps
> someone can shed some light on Chicken's support for SRFI-22, SRFI-88
> and SRFI-72.
SRFI-88 is now in the documentation, although (use srfi-88) still fails.
It needs to be added to the built-in features l
Hi all,
I've compiled a list of all the relevant standards I could find that
Chicken supports, to aid in the inventory of SRFIs implemented by the
various Scheme systems for the upcoming R7 process.
You can find it at http://chicken.wiki.br/supported-standards
I've taken the liberty of making a l
2009/8/29 David N Murray :
> I ran the runtests script after building 4.1.0 on an OpenBSD 4.4/AMD64
> box.
> syntax tests (r5rs_pitfalls) ...
> Failure: 1.1, expected '0', got '1'.
> Failure: 1.2, expected '#t', got '#f'.
> Passed: 1.3
Hi David,
Thanks fo
Peter Bex xs4all.nl> writes:
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 10:27:26AM -0700, Kon Lovett wrote:
> > The "environments" extension is tolerated but not
> > endorsed. As an example, the "apropos" extension does not use the
> > "environments" extension but instead relies on undocumented calls.
>
>
