Summary

bit-set? argument order is reversed

Metadata

• Id: df16f80312eee1e66ceb99d8a999c91a2706d6a6
• Trac id: 1385
• Type: enhancement
• Reporter: LemonBoy
• Owner:
• Cc:
• Status: closed
• Component: core libraries
• Estimated difficulty: trivial
• Resolution: fixed
• Priority: not urgent at all
• Milestone: 5.0
• Version: 5.0.0
• Changetime: 2017-08-24 21:41:57 UTC
• Created: 2017-07-07 21:43:35 UTC
• Keywords:

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.

Changes and comments

[2017-07-10 20:30:28 UTC] sjamaan wrote:

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?

[2017-08-24 21:41:57 UTC] sjamaan changed status from new to closed

[2017-08-24 21:41:57 UTC] sjamaan set resolution to fixed

[2017-08-24 21:41:57 UTC] sjamaan wrote:

Fixed by 45489c1b3d9fb20bacc91fa393ce7330dd61d22f