From: John Clements (clements at brinckerhoff.org) Date: Mon Jan 14 15:06:05 EST 2008 |
|
I feel lucky not to have been bitten by this, but I can see some potentially very painful bugs possible in a switchover from v3 code to v4 code; in particular, code that uses 'pair?' to distinguish empty from nonempty lists could misclassify mpairs as nulls, leading to some very unpleasant "non-fail-fast" errors. Instead, it would seem to be wiser here to use (not (null? ...)) rather than (pair? ...). FWIW, John Clements
Posted on the users mailing list. |
|