Applied to both branches. Thanks for the patch and thanks also to Mark
for the review and initial patch!
In the future, Tim, if you have larger patches, we should work out
copyright assignment paperwork. But less-than-10-line patches are fine
without. Let me know if this is of interest to you.
Hello again,
the attached patch also adds a unit test.
I am not into how Guile is organized: Is there anything keeping us from
adding the change?
Tim.
>From 99d8fb795932eb92b7d5fb09115b6691f4bfe66d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tim Gesthuizen
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 18:50:37 +0100
Subject: [PATC
Hi Tim,
> Mark H Weaver writes:
>> I agree that this example indicates a bug in Guile's 'let-values'
>> implementation (which was written by Andy Wingo in August 2009), but I
>> disagree that it should evaluate to '(9 2 (3) (4)). I think that your
>> example should raise an error, because at the
Hi Tim,
Tim Gesthuizen wrote:
> Hi,
> I had a look today into the srfi-11 specificiation. It requires that the
> variables are bound to fresh locations so let me rephrase the bug:
>
>> (let ((a 1)
>> (b (let-values (((a . b) (values 2 3))
>> (c (begin (set! a 9) 4)))
Hi,
I had a look today into the srfi-11 specificiation. It requires that the
variables are bound to fresh locations so let me rephrase the bug:
> (let ((a 1)
> (b (let-values (((a . b) (values 2 3))
>(c (begin (set! a 9) 4)))
>(list a b c
> (cons a b
Hi,
I was tinkering with srfi-11 and was wondering whether the following
is correct:
> scheme@(guile-user)> ,expand (let-values (((a b c) (values 1 2 3))
> ((d . e) (values 4 5)))
> (list a b c d e))
> $26 = ((@@ (srfi srfi-11) call-with-values)
