Subject: bug#48098: closed (Re: bug#48098: let/ec compilation bug)

From: [email-masked] (GNU bug Tracking System)
Date: Sun, 02 May 2021 13:44:02 +0000

Your bug report

#48098: let/ec compilation bug

which was filed against the guile package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to [email-masked].

-- 
48098: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=48098
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact [email-masked] with problems

Subject: Re: bug#48098: let/ec compilation bug
From: Andy Wingo <[email-masked]>
To: Stefan Israelsson Tampe <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 02 May 2021 15:43:41 +0200
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

Thanks for the report; fixed!

On Thu 29 Apr 2021 12:48, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <[email-masked]> writes:

> Here is an interesting test case that shows that fi we define
> (define-syntax-rule (letec-m f) (let/ec c (f c)))
> (define                    (letec-f f) (let/ec c (f c)))
>
> we can get two different behaviors with letec-m compiles wrongly. Obviously a bug!
>
> This is important in casy you would like to make a loop macro effectively with a continue directive.

Subject: let/ec compilation bug
From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 12:48:55 +0200
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

Here is an interesting test case that shows that fi we define
(define-syntax-rule (letec-m f) (let/ec c (f c)))
(define                    (letec-f f) (let/ec c (f c)))

we can get two different behaviors with letec-m compiles wrongly.
Obviously a bug!

This is important in casy you would like to make a loop macro effectively
with a continue directive.