On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 15:11:26 +0200 Peter Bex <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 03:10:59PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:34:02AM +0200, Michele La Monaca wrote: >> > I think it's dangerous to leave it as it is. For example: >> > >> > #;3> (and-let* (((or #f #t))) 1) ;; correct >> > 1 >> > #;4> (and-let* ((or #f #t)) 1) ;; WRONG! -> a stricter syntax >> > would catch this error >> > #f >> >> I agree this type of mistake should be caught. Attached is a patch >> that fixes this (and adds a test for it). >> >> Thanks for reporting this bug! > > Of course I forgot the attachment... Thanks, guys. I've pushed the patch. Best wishes. Mario -- http://parenteses.org/mario _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
