Subject: Re: bug#8841: 23.1.90; Bug in cl-seq's `union' implementation

From: Daniel Colascione <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 11:36:09 -0700

On 6/11/11 8:30 PM, Thunk Out wrote:
> There's a bug in cl-seq's `union' implementation.
> 
> The second clause in its `cond' tests CL-LIST1 and CL-LIST2 for
> `equal'ity, not taking :test into account:
> 
>     ((equal cl-list1 cl-list2) cl-list1)
> 
> So, for example:
> 
>     (union '("foo") '("foo") :test '=)  =>  ("foo")
> 
> But:
> 
>     (union '("foo") '("bar") :test '=)  =>  **error**
> 
> 
> 
> -tlh
> 

Note that this problem also affects other functions in cl-seq. I'm also
not entire sure why there's a special case in union for numbers.