should yield 2 too. Is there an agreement on this?
Gregg
Hi Ladislav! Wouldn't it make more sense for the first example to return 1? This is because R3 allows more than block! values for the 'then arg, but it seems like it should not evaluate them if the condition isn't true.
Ashley
re MAP! bug. I use map! with APPEND / SELECT extensively and have never encountered an issue. The bug report highlights an issue with unique/skip on a block! (unique does not accept map! as an argument) ... so I fail to see what the issue with map! usage actually is. Can someone enlighten me?
Sunanda
I am not sure it is a bug - may be a difference between what UNIQUE does and what HF thinks it should do. His example:
unique/skip [a "b" "c" a "d" "e" z "f" "g"] 3 == [a "b" "c" z "f" "g"] Produces the correct (or at least same) result under R2, Red, and R3.
Gabriele
Gregg, the paren is evaluated before being passed to IF.
Personally I don't think CASE should evaluate, but then again, I can see why evaluation might be desired.
Josh
You may want to reread the issue, and take a look at the source links/fix. The point regarding the Map bug is that the C hashing function sometimes accesses invalid memory. The unique/skip example as described in the issue is not demonstrating a bug but showing the hashing function does not always have the same width (2) . The issue is when hash misses occur and new indices are added into the hash, it ignores the width.