[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] and-let* syntax too permissive?
From: |
Peter Bex |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] and-let* syntax too permissive? |
Date: |
Sun, 30 Jun 2013 15:11:26 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.2.3i |
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 03:10:59PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:34:02AM +0200, Michele La Monaca wrote:
> > I think it's dangerous to leave it as it is. For example:
> >
> > #;3> (and-let* (((or #f #t))) 1) ;; correct
> > 1
> > #;4> (and-let* ((or #f #t)) 1) ;; WRONG! -> a stricter syntax
> > would catch this error
> > #f
>
> I agree this type of mistake should be caught. Attached is a patch
> that fixes this (and adds a test for it).
>
> Thanks for reporting this bug!
Of course I forgot the attachment...
Cheers,
Peter
--
http://www.more-magic.net
0001-Make-and-let-check-its-syntax-strictly-instead-of-si.patch
Description: Text document