[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[no subject]

    RMS@MIT-AI 03/31/79 02:21:11
    To: (BUG LISPM) at MIT-AI
    Supplying NIL as an argument to +
    always says that the second argument was NIL,
    no matter which argument it actually was.
    This was with my new error handler, but I don't think it matters.

This was presumably interpreted +?  The argument was indeed the second
argument to microcode + whichever argument to the interpreter's macrocoded
+ function it was.  It's not obvious how to make this less confusing to the user.