Hi Alex,

When you change the behaviour of a function, I would expect you to mention it 
in the CHANGES file. I can see no mention of this ‘for’ change/fix under 
"30nov12 picoLisp-3.1.1” …

What was your motivation for this ‘for’ change?

/Jon

On 17. Apr, 2014, at 08:00, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> wrote:

> Hi Christophe,
> 
> thanks for the input! :)
> 
> 
>> 1) Regarding this snippet: (for ((I . N) 11 (not (= I 4)) (inc N)) (list I 
>> N))
>> the official PicoLisp and ersatz 27 return (4 14),
>> but ersatz 29 (currently the most recent version) returns (3 13).
> 
> Correct. This was fixed a while ago, on Tue Oct 02 09:16:10 2012
> (Increment 'for' counter before the condition).
> 
> But while testing this, I found the miniPicoLisp was faulty here. I
> fixed and uploaded it now.
> 
> 
> 
>> 2) Regarding the sort function, ersatz (both versions) is OK with
>> (let L (3 'Y "Y" 'X 3 "X" NIL) (sort L))
>> but throws a java.lang.StackOverflow with >:
>> (let L (3 'Y "Y" 'X 3 "X" NIL) (sort L >))
> 
> Oops, yes! I've fixed it. It is now in 3.1.6.5 JVM.
> 
> Thanks again!
> ♪♫ Alex

PԔ � &j)m����X�����zV�u�.n7�

Reply via email to