On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 10:07:13PM -0500, Brian Downing wrote:
I think this is an SBCL problem (as it doesn't happen in CMUCL), but Slime code tickles it so I'm sending it to both lists.
It turns out it's a problem with infix. It called READ internally inside its main reader macro. However, it didn't rebind *read-suppress* inside, so it's internals got all mucked up with SBCL's (correct) behavior in this regard.
I see a commit for CMUCL's reader in one of the latest snapshots that mimics the SBCL behavior, so I imagine it would behave the same way with unmodified infix.
Attached is a patch for infix, if anybody cares. It rebinds *read-suppress* to nil inside infix-reader, so the whole infix expression is parsed (and then ignored, since *read-suppress* is t outside).
-bcd