Re: [Sbcl-devel] new test case for the bug 194

[William H. N. <wil...@ai...>]

On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 07:17:36AM +0400, Alexey Dejneka wrote:
> I don't think that placing these two bugs in one entry is a good idea:
> they have different explanations. The second (min 1 nil) is caused by
> flushing of unused code--IDENTITY can do nothing with it. So it is
> really bug 122. The first (min nil) is due to M-V-PROG1: substituting
> a continuation for the result, it forgets about type assertion. The
> purpose of IDENTITY is to save the restricted continuation from
> inaccurate transformations.

OK, thank you. If lumping everything together starts causing
confusion, I can assign new bug numbers or something. For the moment,
though, I've just inserted this explanation at the beginning of the
old BUGS entry (still in my current working copy, which might not be
checked in for a while).

-- 
William Harold Newman <wil...@ai...>
"It is surprising that we did as little damage as we did."
  -- <http://www.visibleworkings.com/archeology/hendrickson.htm>
PGP key fingerprint 85 CE 1C BA 79 8D 51 8C  B9 25 FB EE E0 C3 E5 7C