2009/8/24 Mark Polesky :
> how's this then?
That's much better, thank you. :)
- "Return the definition of @var{name} (a symbol) within"
+ 2, 0, 0, (SCM context, SCM grob),
+ "Return the definition of @var{grob} (a symbol) within"
You could argue that this should stay
Neil Puttock wrote:
> No, since you've changed the names of function arguments while leaving
> the original names in the body of the function...
(facepalm)
how's this then?
- Mark
From 66f5bf48a8708cabf878501fea6fa90e9fc31e69 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark Polesky
Date: Sun, 23 Au
2009/8/23 Mark Polesky :
> Okay to apply?
No, since you've changed the names of function arguments while leaving
the original names in the body of the function:
- 2, 0, 0, (SCM context, SCM name),
- "Return the definition of @var{name} (a symbol) within"
+ 2, 0, 0, (SCM
