Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>Hmm, I can't find the place where scm_procedure_property calls apply. >>Could you give me a hint? >> > Sorry! Please see the attached stack trace. scm_procedure_property > calls scm_stand_in_proc, which calls scm_assoc, which calls > scm_equal_p, which decides to do a generic dispatch, which eventually > comes round to eval and apply again.
Ahh, OK! Thanks. >>Hopefully, there is some misunderstanding >>on your part so that we can avoid making subrs untraceable. (Which is >>what your proposed change does, right?) >> > Yes, it does, and I agree that it would be better not to. Another > option would be for scm_stand_in_proc to use scm_assq instead of > scm_assoc. This seems reasonable, and works for me (i.e. avoids the > busy loop), but is there perhaps some reason why an assoc (rather than > assq) is really needed here? I think scm_assq is good enough. I will make that change. (And sorry for the delay.) _______________________________________________ Bug-guile mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
