Re: & requires l-value

[Ken Raeburn]

Jason Rumney <address@hidden> writes:
> Surely as a temporary workaround, XCDR_AS_LVALUE would be better than
> backing out the LISP_MAKE_RVALUE changes, or am I missing something
> else?

Yes, I suppose it would.  I guess I'm just reacting reflexively to
someone proposing use of something I intented to be "internal" to the
Lisp implementation.  Of course, hacking LISP_MAKE_RVALUE to disable
it has the same effect, but I had hacked it first :-).

> It might be a few days before I get time to fix this properly, so if
> XCDR_AS_LVALUE is an acceptable temporary solution, could someone
> please make that change so Windows users can build again (I won't be
> able to make the change until at least tomorrow evening).

Done.  Juanma, could you please test it?

Ken