From: Bulent Murtezaoglu
Subject: typo in the hyper-spec?
Date: 
Message-ID: <874ruhjn2k.fsf@nkapi.internal>
In

http://www.xanalys.com/software_tools/reference/HyperSpec/Body/mac_prog1cm_prog2.html

It says 
-------------
Description:

prog1 evaluates first-form and then forms, yielding as its only value the primary value yielded by first-form.

prog2 evaluates first-form, then second-form, and then forms, yielding as its only value the primary value yielded by first-form.
-------------

I think for prog2 it should read:


prog2 evaluates first-form, then second-form, and then forms, yielding as its only value the primary value yielded by second-form.

cheers,

BM
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: typo in the hyper-spec?
Date: 
Message-ID: <sfwvgmxxkbu.fsf@world.std.com>
Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> writes:

> I think for prog2 it should read:
> 
> prog2 evaluates first-form, then second-form, and then forms, yielding as its only value the primary value yielded by second-form.

Yeah, this is a known bug.  FWIW, the return-value spec has it correct.
And, fortunately, all vendors agree with the "obvious" interpretation 
you suggest; things like this are only a problem where vendors diverge.

This is unfortunately a bug in the ANSI CL spec itself, not the HyperSpec
(which is merely a webbing of the ANSI CL spec), so is not easily corrected
at the textual level.

Btw, this newsgroup is not the best place to report bugs, whether in
the hyperspec or in a particular implementation unless you believe
there is some dispute about the answer that requires community input.
You can send suspected CLHS bugs to me by email, though bugs in the
underlying standard should probably go to someone on the J13 committee
(which I no longer am); Steve Haflich (···@franz.com), J13 chair, is a
good guess absent some other destination.  Bugs in implementations
should go to their respective vendors unless you don't get the answer
you expect....