[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: RMS at MIT-AI
- From: MOON@MIT-MC
- Date: Fri ,31 Mar 79 09:08:25 EDT
CC: (BUG LISPM) at MIT-MC
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.