Re: completion problem with '291' ok with '274'.

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Feb 12,  9:25am, Peter Stephenson wrote:
} Subject: Re: completion problem with '291' ok with '274'.
}
} On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 21:30:54 -0800
} Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
} > So basically we have to back out all of 34485 and start that over.
} 
} Yes, it's job control stuff that the test suite doesn't cover.

So I should go ahead and commit that back-out?

} Removing the tests in front of the "*cmplx = 1" must be safe in the
} sense that if it shows up problems for annonymous functions then they're
} already present in the standard execution path and hence need fixing.

I thought we determined before that there's some sort of interaction
between the wordcode generation and the setting of *cmplx such that
one can't just change the way that value is computed in par_simple()
et al.  without making a corresponding change upstream?

I'm probably mis-remembering.