Hi Jon,

> 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” …

Yes, you are right.

But usually I write only major changes - or fixes to critical - bugs
into the CHANGES file . Writing _every_ change would rather blow it up.


The "full" change log, BTW, can be found in the code repository

   http://code.google.com/p/picolisp/source/list

for this case in

   
http://code.google.com/p/picolisp/source/list?r=87dac800c299f0a126014aaddc930dc384548b17

   24019884b03e        Increment 'for' counter before the Oct 2, 2012  
Alexander Burger
                       condition                                       
<a...@software-lab.de>



> What was your motivation for this ‘for’ change?

This was of bug, or perhaps not even a bug but an open question of how
'for' should behave on the "secondary" variable.

The example was

   (for ((I . N) 11 (not (= I 4)) (inc N))
      .. )

Before the change, the behavior of 'N' (the "primary" variable) was
clear, but for the counter 'I' it was undefined how it should behave in
terms if the loop condition.

So for the above change I decided that it makes more sense if this
variable is incremented _before_ the condition is tested.

Sorry for the confusion!
♪♫ Alex
-- 
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Reply via email to