Re: [Chicken-hackers] Another bug from the net

[Alex Shinn]

Thomas Bushnell BSG <address@hidden> writes:

> Chicken gets this wrong:
>
> (let ((cont #f))
>    (letrec ((x (call-with-current-continuation (lambda (c) (set! cont c) 0)))
>             (y (call-with-current-continuation (lambda (c) (set! cont c) 0))))
>      (if cont
>          (let ((c cont))
>            (set! cont #f)
>            (set! x 1)
>            (set! y 1)
>            (c 0))
>          (+ x y))))
>
> Should be 0, but I get 1 in Chicken 3.4.

This has come up before, but it is actually debatable, and I
contend that the above is a perfectly valid interpretation
of R5RS.  See the following thread:

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/chicken-hackers/2008-02/msg00020.html

specifically

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/chicken-hackers/2008-02/msg00026.html

-- 
Alex