[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: member inconsistency?
From: |
Fabrice Popineau |
Subject: |
Re: member inconsistency? |
Date: |
Mon, 1 Feb 2016 07:10:34 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) |
Richard Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
> > > In contrast, `member' (and `memql' in the float case) has no check
and
> > > also uses a for-loop with the condition CONSP (tail), and when
this
> > > fails, the function just returns Qnil.
>
> > `delete' and `delq' also has the bug.
>
> Why consider it a bug? What is wrong with it?
>
It makes it harder to catch the bug if you
inadvertently call member with its second
argument not being a sequence ?
Fabrice
- Re: member inconsistency?,
Fabrice Popineau <=