[Chicken-users] Re: read-lines bug and a suggested bug fix

[Tony Sidaway]

On 1/30/07, Tony Sidaway <address@hidden> wrote:
> Thus I suggest that the last line of the procedure  (doread) above
> could be replaced by:
>
>             ((if (eof-object? ln) (reverse lns)(or (eq? n 0)(reverse
> (cons ln lns)))))

Sorry that should be

   ((if (eof-object? ln) (reverse lns)(and (eq? n 0)(reverse (cons ln lns)))))

The second reverse invocation must be evaluated only when n is 0.