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

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

On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 08:05:29PM +0000, Christophe Rhodes wrote:
> * (upgraded-complex-part-type '(integer 6 6))
> 
> RATIONAL
> * (upgraded-complex-part-type 'fixnum)
>
> RATIONAL
[snip]
> So, (typep (complex 1/2 3/2) '(complex (member 6 9))) should indeed
> give T, by my reading.
> 
> Am I wrong?

No, now that you spell it out in terms that even I can understand, it
looks as though you're right. Oops.

This looks like another case of Bill misunderstanding the spec. This
was actually an unusually silly error on my part since you even
mentioned UPGRADED-COMPLEX-PART in your message. I was too clueless to
even recognize it was part of ANSI standard Lisp as opposed to some
internal implementation thing.:-(

I'll look at it again.  Sorry.

-- 
William Harold Newman <wil...@ai...>
"Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" -- Ozymandias, King of Kings 
PGP key fingerprint 85 CE 1C BA 79 8D 51 8C  B9 25 FB EE E0 C3 E5 7C