[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: possible bug in srfi-19 implementation (fix included)
From: |
Thien-Thi Nguyen |
Subject: |
Re: possible bug in srfi-19 implementation (fix included) |
Date: |
Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:36:47 -0700 |
From: address@hidden
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:03:19 +0200
(define (mydatetoweeknumber dt) [...])
Is my solution acceptable? If not, is there anyone who can implement
a better solution?
looks like your solution codifies ISO-8601, but srfi-19 does not specify
ISO-8601. if it is possible to implement a "date-week-number-ISO-8601"
using srfi-19 date-week-number (perhaps by providing an appropriate
second arg to date-week-number), it would be good to include that as an
example in the documentation. would you like to try this approach?
this is a separate issue from whether or not guile's (srfi srfi-19)
date-week-number implementation fulfills the srfi-19 specification. i
see there is no test for that in test-suite/tests/srfi-19.test. would
you like to write one?
thi