Bug in srfi-48? Donald Allen (11 Oct 2017 19:42 UTC)
Re: Bug in srfi-48? Arthur A. Gleckler (11 Oct 2017 19:46 UTC)
Re: Bug in srfi-48? Donald Allen (11 Oct 2017 20:36 UTC)
Re: Bug in srfi-48? Arthur A. Gleckler (11 Oct 2017 21:33 UTC)
Re: Bug in srfi-48? Donald Allen (12 Oct 2017 13:04 UTC)
Re: Bug in srfi-48? Arthur A. Gleckler (12 Oct 2017 19:07 UTC)
Re: Bug in srfi-48? Donald Allen (12 Oct 2017 19:42 UTC)
Re: Bug in srfi-48? Shiro Kawai (12 Oct 2017 20:40 UTC)
Re: Bug in srfi-48? Arthur A. Gleckler (12 Oct 2017 23:13 UTC)
Re: Bug in srfi-48? Donald Allen (13 Oct 2017 02:09 UTC)
Re: Bug in srfi-48? Donald Allen (13 Oct 2017 15:58 UTC)
Re: Bug in srfi-48? Donald Allen (13 Oct 2017 16:13 UTC)
Re: Bug in srfi-48? Marc Feeley (13 Oct 2017 17:50 UTC)
Re: Bug in srfi-48? Donald Allen (13 Oct 2017 17:52 UTC)
Re: Bug in srfi-48? Shiro Kawai (13 Oct 2017 19:54 UTC)
Re: Bug in srfi-48? John Cowan (13 Oct 2017 17:34 UTC)
Re: Bug in srfi-48? Donald Allen (13 Oct 2017 17:51 UTC)
Re: Bug in srfi-48? Alex Shinn (14 Oct 2017 13:03 UTC)
Re: Bug in srfi-48? Arthur A. Gleckler (14 Oct 2017 13:11 UTC)
Re: Bug in srfi-48? Arthur A. Gleckler (18 Oct 2017 18:20 UTC)
Re: Bug in srfi-48? Donald Allen (18 Oct 2017 19:11 UTC)

Re: Bug in srfi-48? Donald Allen 12 Oct 2017 13:04 UTC

Arthur --

Thanks for the quick response. From your description of the patch, it
sounds like you addressed the error that occurs using Gambit. But did
you also have a look at the odd rounding behavior I reported in my
first message?

/Don

On 11 October 2017 at 17:32, Arthur A. Gleckler <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Donald Allen <xxxxxx@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Maybe this will help:
>
>
> Thanks.  I tried your examples in both Gambit and Guile.  They worked fine
> in Guile, but in Gambit, I got the same results you did.  It turns out that
> this is because number->string in Gambit doesn't prefix numbers whose
> absolute value is less than one with a zero, i.e. it produces ".997" instead
> of "0.997".  However, compose-with-digits assumes the latter.
>
> I've attached a fix for this bug.  Note that I have not checked for this
> problem on all code paths.
>
> I've included Ken Dickey, the author of SRFI 48, among the recipients in
> case he would like to comment — or approve of my applying the patch to the
> public implementation as an erratum.
>
> For reference, here's the archive of the discussion so far:
>
>   https://srfi-email.schemers.org/srfi-48/dates/2017/10
>
> Thanks.