- ;; FIXME: In CMU CL ca. 19991205, this binding list had a fourth
- ;; element in it, NEW-VALUE. It's hard to see how that could possibly
- ;; be right, since SLOT-BOUNDP has no NEW-VALUE. Since it was causing
- ;; a failure in building PCL for SBCL, so I changed it to match the
- ;; definition of SLOT-BOUNDP (and also to match the list used in the
- ;; similar OPTIMIZE-SLOT-VALUE, above). However, I'm weirded out by
- ;; this, since this is old code which has worked for ages to build
- ;; PCL for CMU CL, so it's hard to see why it should need a patch
- ;; like this in order to build PCL for SBCL. I'd like to return to
- ;; this and find a test case which exercises this function both in
- ;; CMU CL, to see whether it's really a previously-unexercised bug or
- ;; whether I've misunderstood something (and, presumably, patched it
- ;; wrong).
+ ;; FIXME: In CMU CL ca. 19991205, this binding list had a
+ ;; fourth element in it, NEW-VALUE. It's hard to see how
+ ;; that could possibly be right, since SLOT-BOUNDP has no
+ ;; NEW-VALUE. Since it was causing a failure in building PCL
+ ;; for SBCL, so I changed it to match the definition of
+ ;; SLOT-BOUNDP (and also to match the list used in the
+ ;; similar OPTIMIZE-SLOT-VALUE, above). However, I'm weirded
+ ;; out by this, since this is old code which has worked for
+ ;; ages to build PCL for CMU CL, so it's hard to see why it
+ ;; should need a patch like this in order to build PCL for
+ ;; SBCL. I'd like to return to this and find a test case
+ ;; which exercises this function both in CMU CL, to see
+ ;; whether it's really a previously-unexercised bug or
+ ;; whether I've misunderstood something (and, presumably,
+ ;; patched it wrong).