You're right, that absolutely makes sense. I've pushed a fix. It's interesting to note that this is the only place in the code Parenscript generates where the semantics of '==' (as opposed to '===') make sense.
Vladimir 2010/4/19 Daniel Gackle <[email protected]>: > The array literals fix worked, thanks. Next up: the changes around equality > are a problem. > Specifically, the NULL operator, which used to evaluate to true on both null > and undefined, now applies strict equality, meaning that (null undefined) is > false. Since we use the NULL operator in a great many places precisely to > check whether something is null or undefined, this change breaks our code. > In general, I've found it to be good to conflate null and undefined in most > of our PS code; it simplifies things and works fine. So I guess we have to > go on record as protesting this change... especially since there already > existed ways to distinguish null from undefined in the minority case when > it's needed. > Others' thoughts? > Dan > p.s. I haven't looked closely at the other implications of the equality > changes, because the NULL issue is such a big one that I thought I'd start > there. > _______________________________________________ > parenscript-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel > > _______________________________________________ parenscript-devel mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
