0.pre7.83:

[sbcl.git] / src / compiler / seqtran.lisp

diff --git a/src/compiler/seqtran.lisp b/src/compiler/seqtran.lisp
index 22e25de..dfc86a2 100644 (file)
--- a/src/compiler/seqtran.lisp
+++ b/src/compiler/seqtran.lisp
@@ -203,7 +203,7 @@
                 ;; of the &REST vars.)
                 `(lambda (result-type fun ,@seq-args)
                    (declare (ignore result-type))
-                   (do ((really-fun (%coerce-callable-to-function fun))
+                   (do ((really-fun (%coerce-callable-to-fun fun))
                         ,@index-bindingoids
                         (acc nil))
                    ((or ,@tests)
@@ -725,16 +725,18 @@
           (return (values find position)))
         (when (>= index start)
           (when (funcall predicate key-i)
-            ;; This hack of dealing with non-NIL FROM-END for list data
-            ;; by iterating forward through the list and keeping track of
-            ;; the last time we found a match might be more screwy than
-            ;; what the user expects, but it seems to be allowed by the
-            ;; ANSI standard. (And if the user is screwy enough to ask
-            ;; for FROM-END behavior on list data, turnabout is fair play.)
+            ;; This hack of dealing with non-NIL FROM-END for list
+            ;; data by iterating forward through the list and keeping
+            ;; track of the last time we found a match might be more
+            ;; screwy than what the user expects, but it seems to be
+            ;; allowed by the ANSI standard. (And if the user is
+            ;; screwy enough to ask for FROM-END behavior on list
+            ;; data, turnabout is fair play.)
             ;;
-            ;; It's also not enormously efficient, calling PREDICATE and
-            ;; KEY more often than necessary; but all the alternatives
-            ;; seem to have their own efficiency problems.
+            ;; It's also not enormously efficient, calling PREDICATE
+            ;; and KEY more often than necessary; but all the
+            ;; alternatives seem to have their own efficiency
+            ;; problems.
             (if from-end
                 (setf find i
                       position index)
@@ -750,7 +752,7 @@
                              :policy (> speed space)
                              :important t)
   "expand inline"
-  '(%find-position-if (let ((test-fun (%coerce-callable-to-function test)))
+  '(%find-position-if (let ((test-fun (%coerce-callable-to-fun test)))
                        ;; I'm having difficulty believing I'm
                        ;; reading it right, but as far as I can see,
                        ;; the only guidance that ANSI gives for the
@@ -777,7 +779,7 @@
                      from-end
                      start
                      end
-                     (%coerce-callable-to-function key)))
+                     (%coerce-callable-to-fun key)))
 
 ;;; The inline expansions for the VECTOR case are saved as macros so
 ;;; that we can share them between the DEFTRANSFORMs and the default