Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix #1620 by ignoring captured state of replaced variables

2019-07-05 Thread Peter Bex
On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 09:13:36AM +0300, megane wrote: > I reduced this case to this: > > (define (foo bindings) > (define (append-map proc lst1) > (if lst1 > (proc 1) > (proc 1 2))) > (append-map (lambda (b a) (begin)) bindings)) > > Error: ../fail.scm:5:

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix #1620 by ignoring captured state of replaced variables

2019-07-05 Thread megane
Peter Bex writes: > On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 02:05:21PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: >> You're right, good catch! That was an oversight on my part, I only >> removed the captured check of the other variable. I hope this makes >> things faster in more cases. I can make and test a new patch, but