🚀 go-pugleaf

In <2671@castle.ed.ac.uk>, db@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Dave Berry) quotes
<1190@cf-cm.UUCP> by ted@computing-maths.cardiff.ac.uk (Ted Lawson) writes:
>>  One entry in the rename/redefine table on page 155 of
>>  Eiffel: The Language (page 260 of OOSC) appears to be incorrect.
>>
>>  Case 6 of the table claims that
>>
>>      rename old as new
>>      redefine old, new
>>
>>  causes b.old to bind to the same feature as c.new.

    Although Mr. Lawson's message itself did not make it to this
end of the world, I would like to state that Case 6 is correct
to all the extent of my knowledge. (It is apparently counter-intuitive
since this is not the first time it has been reported to me as being
incorrect.)

    When checking, however, I realized to my horror that our
current implementation does not agree with the table for Case 6.
This will be corrected shortly. Our apologies for this bug. 

-- Bertrand Meyer
bertrand@eiffel.com