Re: is this a bug?

[Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>]

In article <ur6du1quj.fsf@tiscali.co.uk>,
 David Roderick <angel_ov_north@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> 9.2.4 Symbol Function Indirection
> ---------------------------------
> 
>  -- Function: indirect-function function &optional noerror
>      This function returns the meaning of FUNCTION as a function.  If
>      FUNCTION is a symbol, then it finds FUNCTION's function definition
>      and starts over with that value.  If FUNCTION is not a symbol,
>      then it returns FUNCTION itself.
> 
>      This function signals a `void-function' error if the final symbol
>      is unbound and optional argument NOERROR is `nil' or omitted.
>      Otherwise, if NOERROR is non-`nil', it returns `nil' if the final
>      symbol is unbound.
> 
>      It signals a `cyclic-function-indirection' error if there is a
>      loop in the chain of symbols.
> 
>      Here is how you could define `indirect-function' in Lisp:
> 
>           (defun indirect-function (function)
>             (if (symbolp function)
>                 (indirect-function (symbol-function function))
>               function))
> 
> 
> shouldn't this be? 
> 
>           (defun indirect-function (function)
>             (if (symbolp function)
>                 (symbol-function function)
>               (function))

No, because the description says it "starts over with that value", not 
"returns that value".  It follows a chain of indirections, not just one 
level.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***