GNU bug report logs - #75413
Fix faulty example of SRFI-31 in the manual.

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 75413 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 75413 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Yuval Langer <yuval.langer <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-guile <at> gnu.org
Subject: Fix faulty example of SRFI-31 in the manual.
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 01:54:43 +0200

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

[0001-Fix-faulty-SRFI-31-example.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #8 received at 75413 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Rob Browning <rlb <at> defaultvalue.org>
To: Yuval Langer <yuval.langer <at> gmail.com>, 75413 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#75413: Fix faulty example of SRFI-31 in the manual.
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 19:23:31 -0600

Yuval Langer <yuval.langer <at> gmail.com> writes:

> diff --git a/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi b/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
> index d77bc1c90..1373409f0 100644
> --- a/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
> +++ b/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
> @@ -3367,8 +3367,9 @@ The second syntax can be used to create anonymous recursive functions:
>  
>  @lisp
>    guile> (define tmp (rec (display-n item n)
> -                       (if (positive? n)
> -                           (begin (display n) (display-n (- n 1))))))
> +                       (when (positive? n)
> +                           (display item)
> +                           (display-n item (- n 1)))))
>    guile> (tmp 42 3)
>    424242
>    guile>

Looks good overall -- strictly speaking, might need a (newline) in there
if we want the output to match (or the output could be changed).

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A
GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4

Message #11 received at 75413 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Yuval Langer <yuval.langer <at> gmail.com>
To: Rob Browning <rlb <at> defaultvalue.org>
Cc: 75413 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#75413: Fix faulty example of SRFI-31 in the manual.
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 06:01:54 +0200

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

Adding a `(newline)` in this patch.

On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 3:23 AM Rob Browning <rlb <at> defaultvalue.org> wrote:
>
> Yuval Langer <yuval.langer <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
> > diff --git a/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi b/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
> > index d77bc1c90..1373409f0 100644
> > --- a/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
> > +++ b/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
> > @@ -3367,8 +3367,9 @@ The second syntax can be used to create anonymous recursive functions:
> >
> >  @lisp
> >    guile> (define tmp (rec (display-n item n)
> > -                       (if (positive? n)
> > -                           (begin (display n) (display-n (- n 1))))))
> > +                       (when (positive? n)
> > +                           (display item)
> > +                           (display-n item (- n 1)))))
> >    guile> (tmp 42 3)
> >    424242
> >    guile>
>
> Looks good overall -- strictly speaking, might need a (newline) in there
> if we want the output to match (or the output could be changed).
>
> --
> Rob Browning
> rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
> GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A
> GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4

[0001-Fix-faulty-SRFI-31-example.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #14 received at 75413 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Yuval Langer <yuval.langer <at> gmail.com>
To: Rob Browning <rlb <at> defaultvalue.org>
Cc: 75413 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#75413: Fix faulty example of SRFI-31 in the manual.
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 06:11:12 +0200

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

Sorry about the flood.  I have added `(newline)`, but the example
output did not have the literal newlines, so in this patch I have
added both the `(newline)` call and the example output newlines.


On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 6:01 AM Yuval Langer <yuval.langer <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Adding a `(newline)` in this patch.
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 3:23 AM Rob Browning <rlb <at> defaultvalue.org> wrote:
> >
> > Yuval Langer <yuval.langer <at> gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > diff --git a/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi b/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
> > > index d77bc1c90..1373409f0 100644
> > > --- a/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
> > > +++ b/doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi
> > > @@ -3367,8 +3367,9 @@ The second syntax can be used to create anonymous recursive functions:
> > >
> > >  @lisp
> > >    guile> (define tmp (rec (display-n item n)
> > > -                       (if (positive? n)
> > > -                           (begin (display n) (display-n (- n 1))))))
> > > +                       (when (positive? n)
> > > +                           (display item)
> > > +                           (display-n item (- n 1)))))
> > >    guile> (tmp 42 3)
> > >    424242
> > >    guile>
> >
> > Looks good overall -- strictly speaking, might need a (newline) in there
> > if we want the output to match (or the output could be changed).
> >
> > --
> > Rob Browning
> > rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
> > GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A
> > GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4

[0001-Fix-faulty-SRFI-31-example.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #19 received at 75413-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: lloda <lloda <at> sarc.name>
To: 75413-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Fix faulty example of SRFI-31 in the manual.
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 20:58:45 +0100

Patch applied in 0b501477f937718a89a2783409e5b9327a03f800.

Thanks

Previous Next

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