On Nov 14, 2009, at 08:47, Neil Jerram wrote:
Thanks, Andy. I'm confident now that your patch is correct, Ken, so please could you apply it? Also please let me know if you're happy to do the other changes (mostly comment updates) that I suggested to go with it, or if you'd prefer me to do those.
Sure, I'll look at updating the comments too. Based on my current understanding, though, I'm seeing more code updates that might be desirable, like not checking SCM_CLASSP(SCM_CAR(z)) etc, if a non-pair is the one and only indication of hitting the end of the specifiers. Even if we don't change the code (since it still works), new comments reflecting my understanding would make the code seem non-sensical. I just tried a quick check changing those tests to assert calls, and everything seems fine. So, I'll revise my patch...
I may be overlooking something in my old email -- what were the non- comment updates you suggested?
Ken
