[r6rs-discuss] thinko in spec of fxcopy-bit-field

From: William D Clinger <will>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:27:09 -0400

By the way, I apologize for an error in the subject
line and body of my original post. I referred to
fxcopy-bit-field, which is the procedure I was
implementing when I realized that the specification
of fxbit-field contains an arbitrary (and, in my
opinion, idiotic) restriction on its third argument.

One can make a legitimate argument (from portability)
in favor of the similar restriction on the third
argument of the fxcopy-bit-field, fxrotate-bit-field,
and fxreverse-bit-field procedures.

Will
Received on Thu Sep 27 2007 - 20:27:09 UTC