Re: [Chicken-hackers] bit-set? is inconsistently specified

[Thomas Chust]

2009/8/4 Thomas Bushnell BSG <address@hidden>:
> On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 00:34 +0200, Thomas Chust wrote:
>> [...] However the convention of passing the
>> composite object first and the index after it is much more widespread
>> than what SRFI-60 apparently does. By the principle of least surprise
>> I would always have expected to find the parameters in the order
>> CHICKEN currently uses!
>
> I agree completely that, if this were being designed from the beginning,
> the Chicken order is better than the srfi-60 order.  Yet, I don't think
> we get to deal with that. [...]

Hello,

as far as I can see, CHICKEN neither claims to implement SRFI-60 nor
does it implement a large subset of procedures specified there. Also a
SRFI is not a binding standard document, but a *request* for
implementation.

Given all that and the fact that CHICKEN's choice of API convention is
probably better than that of SRFI-60 here, I don't see any reason at
all, why this behaviour should be changed.

However, that is just my personal opinion :-)

cu,
Thomas


-- 
When C++ is your hammer, every problem looks like your thumb.