Re: What Part of Unspecified Does Kenny Not Understand?

> > CLHS 18.2.11 maphash:
> > "...The consequences are unspecified if any attempt is made to add or
> > remove an entry from the hash-table while a maphash is in progress,
> > with two exceptions: the /function/ can...use remhash to remove that
> > entry."
> From: Juho Snellman <jsn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> The difference is between "an entry" and "that entry". You may
> remove the key that the function was called with, you may not
> remove any other keys.

That's my understanding too. I'm 99% sure KMP will agree.

CLtL1 is more clear, but has a typo: Manually typing in from printed page:
"with one [sic] exception: if the function calls REMHASH to remove
 the entry currently being processed by the function, or performs a
 SETF of GETHASH on that entry to change the associated value."
The im****tant more-clear phrase is "the entry currently being processed".
I wonder why KMP changed the language in the HyperSpec to be ever
so slightly less obviously clear than how Steele had explained the
same thing? Maybe KMP thought the new wording was less
wordy/verbose/redundant/overkill/forDummies?
(I don't have access to the ANSI spec AFAIK, so I'm just guessing
 that KMP made the language more concise in the ANSI spec, then
 simply copied that concise language into the HyperSpec. If Steele
 would grant permission, perhaps KMP should update the HyperSpec to
 use Steele's language instead, since it does seem to be a point of
 occasional misunderstanding? Or maybe have the phrase "that entry"
 in *each* of the two-exceptions be a hyperlink to the explanatory
 footnote "the entry currently being processed, i.e. the entry whose
 key is the first parameter to the function")