On 3/9/23 1:30 PM, Bradley Lucier wrote:
> I'll look into how to rewrite the code so that perhaps an unexpected
> answer is returned when continuations are manipulated by the arguments
> to the procedures
>
> array-{copy|append|stack|decurry|block}!
>
> but still avoiding segfaults.

I've just submitted a pull request that fixes this problem, and that
adds tests to show re-invoking continuations of the source's getter
gives the correct results for the non-! routines, and that doing so
doesn't crash the ! routines (for which re-invoking the continuation of
a getter is an error).

I would be interested to know whether other implementors agree with my
interpretation of what are correct results for the non-! routines.

Brad