Opened 3 months ago

Closed 4 weeks ago

#1385 closed enhancement (fixed)

bit-set? argument order is reversed

Reported by: LemonBoy Owned by:
Priority: not urgent at all Milestone: 5.0
Component: core libraries Version: 5.0
Keywords: Cc:
Estimated difficulty: trivial

Description

Both the srfi-33 and srfi-60 define bit-set? as (bit-set? index i) where i is the integer to test but CHICKEN's own bit-set? procedure has the arguments the other way around.

Change History (2)

comment:1 Changed 2 months ago by sjamaan

hm, I just noticed we already have a bit-set? in CHICKEN 4 (earlier, I thought I had introduced this mistake with the numeric tower change).

Changing its argument order is likely to introduce some extremely hard to find bugs in existing programs that are ported from CHICKEN 4 to CHICKEN 5.

On the other hand, porting existing programs from other Schemes is likely to cause problems too if we keep the current argument order.

How should we deal with that? Should we just bite the bullet and reverse the order, or should we stick with the order we have?

comment:2 Changed 4 weeks ago by sjamaan

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from new to closed

Fixed by 45489c1b3d9fb20bacc91fa393ce7330dd61d22f

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.