please pull from http://common-lisp.net/~loliveira/darcs/alexandria , the repository contains a few changes made by Luis during the last SoC. there a re a few conflicts which I tried to resolv here: http://common-lisp.net/~sionescu/darcs/alexandria/ , although I'm not sure I did it properly. A summary of the changes:
Mon Aug 6 18:02:06 CEST 2007 Stelian Ionescu sionescu@common-lisp.net * Fix some type declarations for CLISP-compatibility. Type declareations like ((or fixnum null) bar) or (unsigned-byte foo) don't work on CLISP. Must use (type unsigned-byte foo) instead.
Thu Jul 26 19:11:10 CEST 2007 Luis Oliveira loliveira@common-lisp.net * New macro: IGNORE-SOME-CONDITIONS
Fri Jul 20 02:36:07 CEST 2007 Luis Oliveira loliveira@common-lisp.net * New macro: COERCEF
Added respective documentation to the manual.
Fri Jul 20 02:35:23 CEST 2007 Luis Oliveira loliveira@common-lisp.net * New macro: NCONCF
- Added respective documentation to the manual. - New test: NCONCF.1
Fri Jul 20 02:34:20 CEST 2007 Luis Oliveira loliveira@common-lisp.net * New function: FEATUREP
Added respective documentation in manual as well.
Wed Jul 11 16:03:50 CEST 2007 Luis Oliveira loliveira@common-lisp.net * Remove trailing whitespace in source code
On 9/27/07, Stelian Ionescu sionescu@common-lisp.net wrote:
please pull from http://common-lisp.net/~loliveira/darcs/alexandria , the repository contains a few changes made by Luis during the last SoC. there a re a few conflicts which I tried to resolv here: http://common-lisp.net/~sionescu/darcs/alexandria/ , although I'm not sure I did it properly. A summary of the changes:
i've pushed the non-controversial patches, see below for details.
Mon Aug 6 18:02:06 CEST 2007 Stelian Ionescu sionescu@common-lisp.net
- Fix some type declarations for CLISP-compatibility.
Type declareations like ((or fixnum null) bar) or (unsigned-byte foo) don't work on CLISP. Must use (type unsigned-byte foo) instead.
pushed.
Thu Jul 26 19:11:10 CEST 2007 Luis Oliveira loliveira@common-lisp.net
- New macro: IGNORE-SOME-CONDITIONS
not yet pushed. opinions? i personally think it's fine and i'll push it eventually.
Fri Jul 20 02:36:07 CEST 2007 Luis Oliveira loliveira@common-lisp.net
- New macro: COERCEF
Added respective documentation to the manual.
Fri Jul 20 02:35:23 CEST 2007 Luis Oliveira loliveira@common-lisp.net
- New macro: NCONCF
- Added respective documentation to the manual.
- New test: NCONCF.1
not yet pushed. i personally find these confusing at times, because the F macros always need the place first, but we already have APPENDF, so i think i'll also push these in the near future, unless someone speaks up.
Fri Jul 20 02:34:20 CEST 2007 Luis Oliveira loliveira@common-lisp.net
- New function: FEATUREP
Added respective documentation in manual as well.
can't be pushed until the IGNORE-SOME-CONDITIONS change is decided (there's a merge patch waiting here to be pushed that depends on it. i need to re-record it if i-s-c is voted down).
Wed Jul 11 16:03:50 CEST 2007 Luis Oliveira loliveira@common-lisp.net
- Remove trailing whitespace in source code
pushed.
Thu Jul 26 19:11:10 CEST 2007 Luis Oliveira loliveira@common-lisp.net
- New macro: IGNORE-SOME-CONDITIONS
not yet pushed. opinions? i personally think it's fine and i'll push it eventually.
I'm not wild about the name, but in principle I have nothing against something like this.
Fri Jul 20 02:36:07 CEST 2007 Luis Oliveira loliveira@common-lisp.net
- New macro: COERCEF
Added respective documentation to the manual.
Fri Jul 20 02:35:23 CEST 2007 Luis Oliveira loliveira@common-lisp.net
- New macro: NCONCF
- Added respective documentation to the manual.
- New test: NCONCF.1
not yet pushed. i personally find these confusing at times, because the F macros always need the place first, but we already have APPENDF, so i think i'll also push these in the near future, unless someone speaks up.
I'm not sure what you find confusing: can you give a short example. I think I'm fine with both.
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus
I'm not sure what you find confusing: can you give a short example. I think I'm fine with both.
you must keep in mind that the result is stored in the first argument, even though concatenation can easily be visualized.
this, with a little sloppyness, can easily lead to a refactoring that transposes the arguments and ends up in something wrong.
but i don't mean it as an argument against their inclusion in Alexandria. one can shoot their legs in many other ways... :)
alexandria-devel@common-lisp.net
-
Attila Lendvai -
Nikodemus Siivola -
Stelian Ionescu