Skip to content

Conversation

@drmeister
Copy link

The :: prefix looks like a typo that takes advantage of an sbcl undefined behavior that parses ::force-copy? as the keyword symbol :force-copy?
This makes the code non-portable to a CL implementation that doesn't share the same undefined behavior.

The :: prefix looks like a typo that takes
advantage of an sbcl undefined behavior that parses
::force-copy? as the keyword symbol :force-copy?
This makes the code non-portable to a CL implementation
that doesn't share the same undefined behavior.
@snunez1
Copy link

snunez1 commented Nov 7, 2025

Oh, thanks for this. Would you mine rebasing and making sure it still works, both on SBCL and whatever implementation you're using? I didn't see this until now and have pushed some enhancements.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants