From: Christophe R. <cs...@ca...> - 2003-02-19 19:58:31
|
Antonio Martinez <to...@te...> writes: > Sorry if this was a better test case! The reason I think this was a better test case is that it wasn't vulnerable to changes in the implementation. It was clearly conforming ANSI CL code that has a well-defined result as specified in the standard, and so its execution wasn't likely to change -- whereas symbols that look like SB!IMPL::FOO are exceedingly vulnerable. In any case, many thanks for your diagnosis and patch -- I've merged it into sbcl-0.7.12.48. Thanks again, Christophe -- http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/ +44 1223 510 299/+44 7729 383 757 (set-pprint-dispatch 'number (lambda (s o) (declare (special b)) (format s b))) (defvar b "~&Just another Lisp hacker~%") (pprint #36rJesusCollegeCambridge) |