[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: gsb at MIT-ML
- Subject: MULTIPLE-VALUE expander
- From: JONL at MIT-MC (Jon L White)
- Date: Sat, 4 Apr 81 02:03:00 GMT
- Cc: (BUG LISP) at MIT-MC
- Original-date: 3 APR 1981 2103-EST
Seems I've failed to note the correction made to MULTIPLE-VALUE ocasioned
by your note:
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 81 01:35:42 GMT
Original-Date: 03/23/81 21:35:42 EDT
Subject: Re: why not flush this check entirely?
To: (BUG LISP) at MIT-ML
;(MULTIPLE-VALUE (ANEW ACHANGEP) (IF (EQ (CAR ARG) (QUOTE QUOTE)) (READER-BQ (CADR ARG)) (READER-BQ-FUNFORM ARG))) Most System funs don't return multiple-values
(COMMENT **ERROR** (MULTIPLE-VALUE (ANEW ACHANGEP) (IF (EQ (CAR ARG) (QUOTE QUOTE)) (READER-BQ (CADR ARG)) (READER-BQ-FUNFORM ARG)))
LISP error during MACRO expansion in function READER-BQ-FUNFORM)
; DATA ERROR - TO PROCEED TYPE $P
Is this really a legitimate complaint for this form??
What the static checker wanted to do was "walk" over the form, looking for
things which were certifiably wrong; a COND isn't necessaryly wrong, but
the "walker" should descend thru the clauses before complaining. So I
made it descend thru the appropriate FSUBR's, and simply stopped it
complaining in the case where it "didn't know".