Closed metayan closed 4 years ago
Wow. Not sure what was going on there.
That said I'm not sure this is the correct solution; perhaps there should just not be a :type
restriction. Setting this to t
where prior default was nil
might be a problem if there are any conditionals looking for a default, but I'm not sure what's in there anymore. It's possible this should be a symbol type (in which case nil is fine), but .. someone's going to have to take a closer look at the code.
Thanks for submitting this though.
Pretty funny, actually. The fix I supplied is just a quickie to have it build now, so a proper solution is welcome. I don't know why the restriction is there, so didn't dare removing it, but it seems now that removing it is the better way.
Removed the type checking from foreign-type type slot in #108 instead.
Fixes #106
SBCL introduced more rigorous type checking in sbcl-2.0.7-154-g16b55d78d