Opened 3 weeks ago

Last modified 3 weeks ago

#1385 new enhancement

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


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 (1)

comment:1 Changed 3 weeks 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?

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.