bug#40809: Apology: documentation for srfi-modules broken?

[Rob Browning]

Hello Guilers!

I submitted my patch for srfi-171 which got merged. I built it (or rather: I 
believe I did) on my
little arm board without issues. However, after finally getting some computer 
time yesterday I tried to
build guile master on my Mac, and when I checked the terminal window quickly 
this morning there was a
build failure due to errors in srfi-modules.texi. I built it through homebrew, 
so those the verbosity
was on -11, so all I could see was stderr.

The warning I got was on Line 5767: @var{(reader)} should be @var{reader} (I 
only had about 30s this
morning. There were other warnings, but I think they weren't related to my 
patch, so I didn't really
remember them. 

The error was a space between @result and {} on line 6013. 

This did not seem to affect the release of 3.0.2, but if the output of the 
homebrew install (using my
own recipe to properly build from master) is to be believed I managed to break 
making the documentation
(or maybe homebrew is picky).

I won't have any computer access for a week or two, so I'll have to bear my 
shame publicly on the
mailing list; if anyone could have a look I would be very thankful.

As I said, I didn't have any time to do diagnostics, but if somebody else got 
bitten by this I am very
sorry. If anything it has taught me to not make patches over a cell phone SSH 
session to an SBC.

I will correct this as soon as I have computer access again if nobody else does 
it first.

Best regards from Sweden
  Linus Björnstam
 Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> (25 mins. ago) (inbox unread)
 Subject: Re: bug#40809: Apology: documentation for srfi-modules broken?
 To: Linus Björnstam <linus.bjornstam@veryfast.biz>
 Cc: 40809@-donedebbugs.gnu.org
 Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 20:07:48 -0500

 Linus Björnstam <linus.bjornstam@veryfast.biz> writes:

 > The warning I got was on Line 5767: @var{(reader)} should be
 > @var{reader} (I only had about 30s this morning. There were other
 > warnings, but I think they weren't related to my patch, so I didn't
 > really remember them.

 Looks like this has been fixed.

 Thanks
 [ 5-line signature. Click/Enter to show. ]
 -- 
 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