After looking at it more, there aren't really enough stack functions to warrant a test suite. Any objections if I push this to master?
Noah On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Noah Lavine <noah.b.lav...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here's a patch that fixes the bug for me. I'd also like to add a test > suite for the stack functions, to make sure this doesn't happen again, > but I'll look at that later. > > Noah > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> wrote: >> On Wed 18 Apr 2012 18:08, Noah Lavine <noah.b.lav...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>>> We need to change to default to consider generic objects as >>>> eq?-compared prompt tags. >>> >>> I agree, but you still couldn't use procedures or integers as prompt >>> tags if you wanted make-stack to work, because those are special >>> cases. >> >> Yeah, but the whole point of prompt tags is that you can make a new one >> and know that it is eq?-unique, which is not the case for integers. So >> integers are not in the general case. It seems useful to add procedures >> as a special case too, no? >> >>> That's why I thought of just changing the interface to make-stack to >>> specify what you want - it's such a weird restriction that someone >>> could be bitten by it and have a lot of trouble tracking it down. And >>> because an argument can mean three different things, code that uses >>> make-stack is hard to understand (or at least it was for me). >> >> It's something of a nasty interface, I agree. But it's been around for >> a long time; if we can make a minimal change, we should, it seems to me. >> >> Want to make a patch? >> >> Regards, >> >> Andy >> -- >> http://wingolog.org/
