is #f a valid index?
Duy Nguyen
(29 Jan 2020 12:23 UTC)
|
Re: is #f a valid index?
Arthur A. Gleckler
(02 Mar 2020 23:14 UTC)
|
Re: is #f a valid index?
Arthur A. Gleckler
(05 Apr 2020 22:45 UTC)
|
Re: is #f a valid index?
John Cowan
(25 Jun 2020 21:20 UTC)
|
Re: is #f a valid index?
Alex Shinn
(25 Jun 2020 23:37 UTC)
|
Re: is #f a valid index?
John Cowan
(25 Jun 2020 23:47 UTC)
|
Re: is #f a valid index?
Alex Shinn
(26 Jun 2020 00:23 UTC)
|
Re: is #f a valid index?
John Cowan
(26 Jun 2020 01:00 UTC)
|
Re: is #f a valid index?
Arthur A. Gleckler
(25 Jun 2020 23:57 UTC)
|
Re: is #f a valid index?
Duy Nguyen
(29 Jun 2020 09:13 UTC)
|
Re: is #f a valid index?
Arthur A. Gleckler
(29 Jun 2020 14:39 UTC)
|
Re: is #f a valid index? Duy Nguyen (30 Jun 2020 08:59 UTC)
|
Re: is #f a valid index?
Alex Shinn
(30 Jun 2020 09:18 UTC)
|
Re: is #f a valid index?
Duy Nguyen
(30 Jun 2020 09:25 UTC)
|
Re: is #f a valid index?
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(30 Jun 2020 09:35 UTC)
|
Re: is #f a valid index?
Duy Nguyen
(30 Jun 2020 09:42 UTC)
|
Re: is #f a valid index?
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(30 Jun 2020 09:47 UTC)
|
Re: is #f a valid index?
Duy Nguyen
(30 Jun 2020 09:52 UTC)
|
Re: is #f a valid index?
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(30 Jun 2020 10:01 UTC)
|
Re: is #f a valid index?
Duy Nguyen
(30 Jun 2020 10:11 UTC)
|
Re: is #f a valid index?
Duy Nguyen
(30 Jun 2020 09:37 UTC)
|
Fwd: is #f a valid index?
Arthur A. Gleckler
(01 Jul 2020 20:22 UTC)
|
Re: is #f a valid index?
Arthur A. Gleckler
(14 Sep 2020 15:45 UTC)
|
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 9:39 PM Arthur A. Gleckler <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 2:13 AM Duy Nguyen <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Looks good. I did something like that when adapting the tests for >> Gauche (except that I did "(eqv? #f (string-.." which is not as good >> as "(not (string-..."). > > > But would you mind investigating why it doesn't work on Chibi despite my patch? It still works on Larceny, but I don't want to ask Will until it works on Chibi, which enforces the types. I suppose it's this error? > (define ABC "abc") > (string-cursor->index ABC (string-cursor-next ABC 0)) ERROR in "string-cursor->index": invalid type, expected String-Cursor: 1 The "1" is from this > (string-cursor-next ABC 0) 1 I think chibi does not follow the srfi here. The document for string-cursor->index says " If the argument is already an index/cursor, it is returned unchanged. ". So chibi should accept "1" and return it. But it throws an error instead. -- Duy