<rlb>mfiano: fwiw, recommend reporting non-debian bugs "here", i.e. bug-guile@gnu.org since they'll just have to be forwarded otherwise. <Sheilong>I am appending items to a list with append! however it is not making any effect to the list. <Sheilong>The list is defined in the body of a let statement and the value is appended in another let nested to this one. <Sheilong>append! is not mutation the list. I don't know what I am doing wrong here <lloda>that isn't how append! works. The appended list is the return value <lloda>the argument might get modified or not. You use append! instead of append when you don't care what happens to it, that's the only difference <Sheilong>lloda: At least here it seems to modify the list if there is already elements on it. If the list is empty it does not. <lloda>you can't count on that. The result is the return value, not the argument. <Sheilong>My problem here is to save a result from a computation in a list in by appending it and reusing these values yielded from the computation later on. <lloda>i think this is what you want <lloda>personally i find do unreadable <clone>did that get removed? the (read-enable 'r7rs-symbols) syntax doesn't work either, it looks like it expands to the not-working #{}# syntax ***chris is now known as Guest1725
<rlb>clone: may or may not be related, but I believe wingo changed the reader a good bit recently. <rlb>Is there a way to catch an (error ...) raised during a syntax-rules expansion or similar? (Current application is writing tests for some macro expansion error handling.) <leoprikler>you could try compiling your scheme to bytecode "on the fly", but I don't know how practical that is <lloda>both #{}# and the r7rs || if you enable it <rlb>leoprikler: thanks - and yeah, I should have thought of that. i.e. if it'll work, just test via a catch around an explicit macroexpand of the relevant form. <clone>ice-9/boot-9.scm:1685:16: In procedure raise-exception: <clone>Unbound variable: #{foo bar}# <clone>jgart: i think you want get-string-all from ice-9 textual-ports <lloda>clone: and if you write foo-bar, what do you get? <clone>#{foo-bar}# gives: Unbound variable: foo-bar <lloda>foo-bar alone without the #{ }# will give you the same <lloda>if you do (define #{foo bar}# 0) that will work fine <clone>oh that makes sense, i thought #{foo}# meant 'foo, thanks <lloda>maybe the doc needs an actual example bc it's not the first time that i see someone think that