CLISP developers attitude. Was: [cl-typesetting-devel] CLISPsupport

[Marc Battyani]

"Klaus Weidner" <kw at w-m-p.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 06:48:28PM +0200, Marc Battyani wrote:
> > So do I wait for your new patches or do I put your last ones.
>
> Please use the attached one, I slightly changed v-split to be closer to
> the old code. I'm still not convinced that either this one or the old one
> is correct regarding the slot-value dy update - this one assumes that
> nobody cares about the table dy if the table fit completely, same as the
> old one.

I tested with the examples with the patches and they still work. :)

> It should work on the next clisp - the point of my most recent changes
> was to remove the dependency on the platform-specific differences. If not
> that needs to be fixed - hopefully we'll have moved to iterate by then.

No it's not ok for CLISP, you still use an iteration variable in the finally
clause and they don't want that at all. Makes them sick. They want the ANSI
to ban such an associal behavior. Now they even have to modify the compiler
to be able to tell you that you are wrong. :(

Bruno Haible wrote:
>Sam wrote:
>> I would prefer that this usage just be banned, via an ANSI action.
>An ANSI action can take a long time to happen. Whereas a portability
warning
>can be implemented in clisp today.
>> (loop for r in '(42) finally (setq r 123) (return r))
>>
>> will give 2 unwarranted warnings.
>... and an error about (SETF #:G173) being an undefined function. Argh.
>Seems we need some extra compiler support to get this right.

Klaus:
> One thing that I do agree with him on is that it's a bad idea to depend
> on the values of autostepped iteration values in the finally clause,
> since that's not explicitly defined. The CLISP behavior IMHO actually
> makes more sense than that of the MIT loop.

Yes, but that's not the point. It's a handy feature when you like and use
LOOP and it works on every implementation but CLISP. The standard says
nothing clear on that point so the CLISP interpretation is permitted as well
as the other. BTW LOOP is never used in the clisp sources while it is used
in the SBCL sources for instance. Well enough with that....

It's on the repository and the tarball.

Marc