On Thursday, May 6, 2021 11:16 AM, Taylan Kammer
wrote:
> On 05.05.2021 15:47, Luis Felipe wrote:
>
> > Hi Taylan,
> > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 6:39 AM, Taylan Kammer taylan.kam...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 04.05.2021 10:31, Zelphir Kaltstahl wrote:
> > >
> > > > The first 2 tests are
On 05.05.2021 15:47, Luis Felipe wrote:
> Hi Taylan,
>
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 6:39 AM, Taylan Kammer
> wrote:
>
>> On 04.05.2021 10:31, Zelphir Kaltstahl wrote:
>>
>>> The first 2 tests are surprisingly passing. This is also the reason, why I
>>> used
>>> test-assert and manually wrote th
Hi Taylan,
On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 6:39 AM, Taylan Kammer
wrote:
> On 04.05.2021 10:31, Zelphir Kaltstahl wrote:
>
> > The first 2 tests are surprisingly passing. This is also the reason, why I
> > used
> > test-assert and manually wrote the (equal? ...) in the last test, to see,
> > whether
On 04.05.2021 10:31, Zelphir Kaltstahl wrote:
>
> The first 2 tests are surprisingly passing. This is also the reason, why I
> used
> test-assert and manually wrote the (equal? ...) in the last test, to see,
> whether it makes any difference. Indeed it does.
>
The reference implementation of SRF
Hi Jérémy!
Thanks for letting me know!
I guess I can work around the issue like I did for now.
Best wishes,
Zelphir
On 5/4/21 12:15 PM, Jérémy Korwin-Zmijowski wrote:
> Hey Zelphir !
>
> I think it is related to something I noticed few monthes ago :
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-u
Hey Zelphir !
I think it is related to something I noticed few monthes ago :
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2021-02/msg00061.html
I cross posted the message over here :
https://srfi-email.schemers.org/srfi-64/msg/16101182/
I got no responses from SRFI-64 mailing list.
I think,
