GNU bug report logs - #71300
[PATCH v3] doc: Document SRFI 64.

Previous Next

Full log

Message #17 received at 71300 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz>
Cc: 71300 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Filip Łajszczak <filip <at> lajszczak.dev>,
 Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
Subject: Re: bug#71300: [PATCH v4] doc: Document SRFI 64.
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 22:35:44 +0900

Hi Tomas,

Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz> writes:

> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> This is an import of the 'Abstract', 'Rationale', and 'Specification'
>> sections from the upstream specification text, with some manual
>> adjustment.
>>
>> * doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi (SRFI 64): New subsection.
>
> I think important question to ask here is whether this manual section
> documents SRFI-64 or what Guile ships as SRFI-64.  Current
> implementation shipped by Guile has many quirks that do not conform to
> the specification.
>
>> +@c This SRFI 64 documentation was "snarfed" from upstream specification
>> +@c HTML document using the 'snarfi' script.
>
> Based on this I believe it describes the specification.

That's correct. It's been slightly modified in places where it said
things like "left to the implementation" and I was able to verify what
the current implementation in Guix does.

> I think either of those is fine (albeit describing the Guile's flavor
> would be preferred), but is should be stated (that the behavior

There's not really a Guile flavor; it's more like the reference
implementation flavor ;-).  The one in Guile is pretty stock.

> described by the manual does not match the implementation shipped).

I'd consider different behavior in the implementation compared to the
specification bugs.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Previous Next

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