Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

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)

Re: is #f a valid index? Duy Nguyen 30 Jun 2020 08:59 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