On Jan 14, 2013, at 11:39, Andy Wingo wrote:
…
> The attached patch fixes the problem. If there are no comments against
> it, I will apply it to stable-2.0. It does introduce a slight
> incompatibility, but I don't think there are many case-lambda* users,
> and it makes cases work that previou
Hi!
Andy Wingo skribis:
> So, the story here is fairly simple, but the result is complicated.
Woow, thanks for the clear and thorough explanation!
[...]
> Again, considering the first clause:
>
> ((lambda* (a #:key x) 3) 1 2 3)
>
> Does it apply? It shouldn't: there are three positional
Hi Daniel,
On Mon 12 Nov 2012 14:54, Daniel Llorens writes:
> (define f
> (case-lambda*
> ((a b c #:key x) 3)
> ((a #:key x) 1)))
>
> scheme@(guile-user)> (g 0 #:x 1)
> $1 = 3
>
> The manual says
>
>> Also, for completeness. Guile defines case-lambda* as well, w
On Thu 15 Nov 2012 02:01, Germán "A. Arias" writes:
> /home/german/Escritorio/./test.scm:3:10: In procedure # #:optional y) | (x #:key y) | (x y #:key z)>: Odd length of keyword
> argument list
>
> But there is one interest line
>
> 3: 0 [f 1 # 2 #:z 3]
>
> What mean this? That is taking the seco
On Wed 14 Nov 2012 11:20, Daniel Llorens writes:
> (pass-if "case-lambda*"
>(null? (call-with-warnings
> (lambda ()
> (compile '(let ((f (case-lambda*
>((x #:optional y) 1)
>(
On Nov 15, 2012, at 02:22, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
> On 14 November 2012 18:20, Daniel Llorens wrote:
>>> When the doc. states keyword arguments do not contribute to the
>>> success of a match, it refers only to keyword arguments in the
>>> case-lambda clause, not at the call site. This makes sen
On 14 November 2012 18:20, Daniel Llorens wrote:
>> When the doc. states keyword arguments do not contribute to the
>> success of a match, it refers only to keyword arguments in the
>> case-lambda clause, not at the call site. This makes sense, otherwise
>> it would inhibit writing functions that
Running this.
(define f (case-lambda*
((x #:optional y) 1)
((x #:key y) 2)
((x y #:key z)3)))
(f 1 2)
(f #:y 2)
(f 1 2 #:z 3)
I get.
Backtrace:
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
157: 7 [catch #t # ...]
In unknown file:
?: 6 [apply-smob/1 #]
In ice
El mié, 14-11-2012 a las 11:20 +0100, Daniel Llorens escribió:
>
> Is this the test?
>
> (pass-if "case-lambda*"
>(null? (call-with-warnings
> (lambda ()
> (compile '(let ((f (case-lambda*
>((x #:optional y) 1)
>
On Nov 13, 2012, at 03:46, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
> On 12 November 2012 21:54, Daniel Llorens wrote:
>>
>> (define f
>>(case-lambda*
>>((a b c #:key x) 3)
>>((a #:key x) 1)))
>>
>> scheme@(guile-user)> (g 0 #:x 1)
>> $1 = 3
>
> Because “0 #:x 1” is a val
El mar, 13-11-2012 a las 10:46 +0800, Daniel Hartwig escribió:
>
> However, trying to call with three arguments then triggers an error,
> and I am not sure why:
>
> scheme@(guile-user)> (g 1 2 3)
> :46:1: In procedure g:
> :46:1: In procedure # #:key x)>: Invalid keyword
>
> Entering a new promp
On 12 November 2012 21:54, Daniel Llorens wrote:
>
> (define f
> (case-lambda*
> ((a b c #:key x) 3)
> ((a #:key x) 1)))
>
> scheme@(guile-user)> (g 0 #:x 1)
> $1 = 3
Because “0 #:x 1” is a valid match for “a b c”, you should rearrange
the case-lambda claus
(define f
(case-lambda*
((a b c #:key x) 3)
((a #:key x) 1)))
scheme@(guile-user)> (g 0 #:x 1)
$1 = 3
The manual says
> Also, for completeness. Guile defines case-lambda* as well, which is like
> case-lambda, except with lambda* clauses. A case-lambda* c
13 matches
Mail list logo
