GNU bug report logs - #10491
unread-char and eof

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Daniel Hartwig <mandyke <at> gmail.com>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#10491: closed (unread-char and eof)
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:09:02 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your message dated Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:07:31 +0800
with message-id <CAN3veRfcXn34Q9H3KA2ec0b20gWQWAmdiAz4dyN7U2N0owH0sA <at> mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Re: bug#10491: unread-char and eof
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #10491,
regarding unread-char and eof
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
10491: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=10491
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Aleix Conchillo Flaqué <aconchillo <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-guile <at> gnu.org
Subject: unread-char and eof
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:14:04 -0800

Whenever eof is reach in a port, a call to unread-char passing eof
triggers an error. I'm not sure what's the right behavior for this,
but I guess the way it is now is just as the user should be
responsible to check eof.

A note in the documentation would help in any case.

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Daniel Hartwig <mandyke <at> gmail.com>
To: 10491-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#10491: unread-char and eof
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:07:31 +0800

On 18 January 2012 08:57, Aleix Conchillo Flaqué <aconchillo <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Daniel Hartwig <mandyke <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Nor are type errors mentioned by most other functions, they are simply
>> implied.  This convention is mentioned in the revised report [1]:
>>
>>  It is an error for an operation to be presented with an argument that it
>>  is not specified to handle.  For succinctness, we follow the convention
>>  that if an argument name is also the name of a type listed in section
>>  *note Disjointness of types::, then that argument must be of the named
>>  type.  For example, ...
>>
>> [1] http://people.csail.mit.edu/jaffer/r5rs_3.html#SEC11
>
>
> I see, convinced. Thanks for the feedback.
>
> You can mark it as invalid and close it.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.