Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix for #989 and hopefully #877 too

[Jörg F. Wittenberger]

Am 06.11.2013 20:27, schrieb Peter Bex:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 08:18:20PM +0100, "Jörg F. Wittenberger" wrote:
> > Things seem to be much worse than expected.
> >
> > Without going into all the nasty details, this is roughly where the
> > problem is:
> >
> > The parameter named 'static-variables' here turned out to be
> > #<unspecified> when referenced:
> >
> > (define (rules->process recurse static-variables rules)
> >    (lambda-process
> >     "rules->process"(rules)
> >     ;; FIXME: this needs to be rewritten using the new macros!
> >     (xml-walk*1
> >             (current-place) (current-message) (root-node)
> >             (xsl-envt-union (environment) static-variables)
> >             (namespaces)
> >             (ancestors)
> >             (current-node)
> >             (current-node)
> >             recurse rules)))
> This is all extremely contextual.  I have no idea what half of
> this stuff does, and you can't expect us to dig into a big pile
> of custom code just to distill a bug.  Can you not reduce it to
> something that breaks, but has no external dependencies?
NAH; I don't expect you to dig into it.

Actually it looks as if my assessment was wrong anyway: in the meantime 
I traced the "static-variables" value *before* the "lambda-process" form 
and it too is #<unspecified> hence I rather look elsewhere.

Sorry for the noise.  I'll be back when I know more of have better 
questions.  But it could well be not today.  I have no energy left.