Mark, do you have any thoughts on this one?
A
On Mon 03 Aug 2015 06:29, Rob Browning writes:
> Rob Browning writes:
>
>> To follow up, it does look like it might be broken, but you can ignore
>> my suggested fix.
>
> I'm not that familiar with srfi-64, but it looks like the problem (if
> it's
Rob Browning writes:
> To follow up, it does look like it might be broken, but you can ignore
> my suggested fix.
I'm not that familiar with srfi-64, but it looks like the problem (if
it's not expected) is that test-group doesn't handle the case where it's
creating the first group, i.e. no prior
Rob Browning writes:
> Rob Browning writes:
>
>> With 2.0.11(-deb+1-9):
>>
>> scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (srfi srfi-64))
>> scheme@(guile-user)> (test-group "foo" 13)
>> :2:0: In procedure #> input>:2:0 ()>:
>> :2:0: In procedure struct_vtable: Wrong type argument in
>> position
Rob Browning writes:
> With 2.0.11(-deb+1-9):
>
> scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (srfi srfi-64))
> scheme@(guile-user)> (test-group "foo" 13)
> :2:0: In procedure #:2:0
> ()>:
> :2:0: In procedure struct_vtable: Wrong type argument in
> position 1 (expecting struct): #f
>
> Changing
With 2.0.11(-deb+1-9):
scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (srfi srfi-64))
scheme@(guile-user)> (test-group "foo" 13)
:2:0: In procedure #:2:0
()>:
:2:0: In procedure struct_vtable: Wrong type argument in
position 1 (expecting struct): #f
Changing the syntax-case to use "body ..." instea
