Hello, On 2024-07-29 00:34:14 +0000, Marius via Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language wrote: > Good evening, > > I don't know if this is actually a Guile bug or a documentation bug, but I'm currently learning Guile from the "Guile reference manual" and I've found a mismatch between what the documentation says and what "my" guile does. I use Guile 3.0.9. > > In my Guile instance (from what I can deduce), last-index is a procedure that returns the index of the first element of a list that matches with a s-expresion. > > For example: > > (list-index '(1 2 3) 3) -> 2 > (list-index '(height width) 'width) -> 1 > > But the documentation says otherwise (): > > list-index pred lst1 lst2 ... > > Returns the index of the first set of elements, one from each of lst1 lst2 ..., which satisfies pred. This is documentation for SRFI-1, and that is not available by default (at least not fully), you need to (use-modules) it. See below. > > > If I try to run list-index examples (from the documentation) I get an error because it doesn't know how to deal with a procedure as the first argument. > > > I'm missing something? I understand that list-index it's defined in SRFI-1 and maybe a Guile definition is shadowing the SRFI-1 definition. But where is the Guile documentation for this shadowing list-index? In the Guile Reference Manual list-index it's only described inside SRFI-1 module. It seems that Guile provides 2 different list-index procedures. One defined in the ice-9/boot-9.scm, and one in the srfi-1 module. By default the boot-9's one is available. $ guile -q GNU Guile 3.0.9 Copyright (C) 1995-2023 Free Software Foundation, Inc. Guile comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `,show w'. This program is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `,show c' for details. Enter `,help' for help. scheme@(guile-user)> list-index $1 = # scheme@(guile-user)> ,use (srfi srfi-1) scheme@(guile-user)> list-index $2 = # Notice that by importing srfi-1 the list-index changes to the documented one. You are right that the "default" list-index indeed does not seem to be documented. It also uses `eq?' for comparisons and does not allow changing that. I hope this sheds some light on the problem. Tomas -- There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.