Bruce Korb <bruce.k...@gmail.com> writes: > On 01/04/12 11:43, Andy Wingo wrote: >> The correct behavior is the status quo. We are considering adding a >> hack to produce different behavior for compatibility purposes. We don't >> have to worry about correctness in that case, only compatibility. IMO >> anyway :) > > It would be a nice added benefit if it worked as one would expect. > viz., you make actual, writable copies of strings you pull in so that > if the string-upcase function were to modify its input, then it > would not affect other SCMs with values that happen to be the same > sequence of bytes.
If string-upcase modifies its input (or needs a mutable string to start with), this is a bug, in contrast to what string-upcase! may do. -- David Kastrup
