[r6rs-discuss] thinko in spec of fxcopy-bit-field
William D Clinger
will at ccs.neu.edu
Thu Sep 27 20:27:09 EDT 2007
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.
More information about the r6rs-discuss