[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A bug in KCL affecting the 2/6/90 PCL
- To: eliot@winnie.Princeton.EDU
- Subject: Re: A bug in KCL affecting the 2/6/90 PCL
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Bill Schelter)
- Date: Sun, 11 Feb 90 01:10:53 -0600
- Cc: CommonLoops.pa@Xerox.COM, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: eliot handelman's message of Sat, 10 Feb 90 22:38:09 est <9002110338.AA18639@winnie>
- Posted-date: Sun, 11 Feb 90 01:10:53 -0600
- Redistributed: CommonLoops.pa
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
I don't know about that -- vanilla KCl returned the correct values
both interpreted and compiled. (I haven't tried compiling the new PCL yet).
The point is that KCL and AKCL handle constants differently,
and so the bug would not show up with
(let ((v 1))
but would show up for
(let ((v (list 1)))
in the original KCL.
I believe Harris has already distributed the correct soln to
the bug, and this will certainly be in the next release of AKCL.
You should have also realized that this bug was clearly
in your plain vanilla version of KCL, even though as luck would
have it, it did not show up in the exact example posted.