Re: Unary /

[Stefan Monnier]

> Ah, so there will not be a lot of legacy code relying on the current
> semantics.  This would be
[...]
> Since there are about a dozen apparently unrelated changes, the question
> is whether anything specifically relied on this change.

I don't remember the specific case that motivated the change.
IIRC I changed it mostly because the limitation was arbitrary (as you
can see in the patch, which doesn't actually change the code).

I didn't know that CL had decided to give a completely different meaning
to the unary / than the natural generalization of the behavior of (/ X1
X2 ... Xn).  It seems backward to me, so I guess my sense of aesthetics
would incite me to simply revert my patch, adding a comment that for the
semantics of the unary / there is a conflict between the natural choice
and CL compatibility.


        Stefan