On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 06:40:38PM -0500, Martin Atzmueller wrote:
> In the current CVS-version of sbcl (0.6.8-pre?) 'NEWS' has an entry:
> ?? Martin Atzmueller's versions of two CMU CL patches, as posted on
> sbcl-devel 13 September 2000, have been installed. (The patches fix
> a bug in SUBSEQ and <a bug in ??>.)
The things marked with '??' are planned for the new release, but have
not been done yet.
> And 'BUGS' says (somewhere near the bottom):
> * The bug discussed on the cmucl-imp@... mailing list ca. 5
> simplified by Douglas Crosher down to
> (defun tickle-bug ()
> (labels ((fun1 ()
> (fun2 ()
> (when nil
> (go tag)))
> (when nil
> (go tag)))))
> causes the same problem on SBCL: compiling it fails with
> :LET fell through ECASE expression.
> Very likely the patch discussed there is appropriate for SBCL
> as well, but I don't understand it, so I didn't apply it.
> Actually, I think the bug is fixed, because you indeed incorporated this
> patch by DTC, posted on
> Thu, 07 Sep 2000 04:13:23 +1100.
> e.g. the "let-patch", => in merge-lets,
> "After looking into this further, and trying to figure out why the
> deleted calls block was not marked deleted, it appears that the
> real problem is in merge-let which is not removing the converted
> function from the lambda-calls in the case of a recursive call ..."
> This patch was present in my set of two patches that I sent (see above).
I have still not applied your patches yet.:-(
> Additionally I have some comments on the 'BUGS' file:
> Apparently you tidied it up, so that bugs, that are not present any more
> in sbcl, were removed (I did this some time ago, but failed to send you
> the file).
> Anyway there are some more things to remove, because they were fixed
> (tested on a sbcl-0.6.7.4):
> I am quoting from 'BUGS':
OK, thank you. I will remove those from the list. I need
to figure out some way to keep my bugs information under better
control. Probably reducing the number of entries to keep track
of, instead of allowing them to increase, would help.
> - FIXED: * The print system doesn't conform to ANSI
> "22.214.171.124.1 Package Prefixes for Symbols" for keywords printed
> *PACKAGE* is the KEYWORD package.
> from a message by Ray Toy on CMU CL mailing list Fri, 28 Apr 2000:
> In a discussion on comp.lang.lisp, the following code was given (by
> Erik Naggum):
> (let ((*package* (find-package :keyword)))
> (write-to-string object :readably t))
> +++ this works with
> +++ (let ((*package* (find-package :keyword)))
> +++ (write-to-string :bla :readably t))
> +++ =>
> +++ ":BLA"
> +++ Or am I missing something?
No, that bug was fixed, I just neglected to remove it from the
> Hope this is useful.
It is! I'm embarrassed that I left this confusion for other people to
have to find and fix, but I do appreciate you finding and fixing it.
William Harold Newman <william.newman@...>
PGP key fingerprint 85 CE 1C BA 79 8D 51 8C B9 25 FB EE E0 C3 E5 7C