Re: [Sbcl-devel] rejected patch: "Bug 106 (COMPLEX type specifiers)"

[Arthur L. <ale...@xs...>]

Christophe Rhodes wrote:
 
> > In particular, after the patch we have
> >   * (sb-kernel:specifier-type '(complex (member 6 9)))
> >   #<SB-KERNEL:NUMERIC-TYPE (COMPLEX RATIONAL)>
> > so that
> >   * (typep (complex 1/2 3/2) '(complex (member 6 9)))
> >   T
> > That seems worse than the old behavior, where the pre-ANSI code
> > refused to accept (COMPLEX (MEMBER ...)) types at all. I'd rather have
> > code that signals an error about its nonconformance than code which
> > quietly gets the wrong answer.
> 
> I'm sure that you're right, but I don't see immediately what's wrong
> with these

I don't see anything wrong either. 

Also, LWW 4.1.20 returns the same results for
  (typep (complex 1/2 3/2) '(complex (member 6 9))) -> T
for
  (upgraded-complex-part-type '(integer 6 6)) -> RATIONAL
and for
  (upgraded-complex-part-type 'fixnum) -> RATIONAL

Not that this proves anything, of course.