On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Mario Lang mlang@delysid.org wrote:

Erik Huelsmann ehuels@gmail.com writes:

...

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen@gmail.com wrote:

...

On 15 June 2010 00:26, Alessio Stalla alessiostalla@gmail.com wrote:

...

...

If there is consensus, I can prepare an update patch if need be (its simple enough anyways).

+1 :)

+1 as well.

Completely fine by me. So, it looks like we are completely in agreement :-)

OK, here is a new patch that implements the suggested behaviour:

Index: src/org/armedbear/lisp/JavaObject.java

--- src/org/armedbear/lisp/JavaObject.java      (revision 12752) +++ src/org/armedbear/lisp/JavaObject.java      (working copy) @@ -108,6 +108,12 @@         return super.typep(type);     }

• @Override
• public LispObject STRING()
• {
• return new SimpleString(obj != null? obj.toString(): "null");
• }

public final Object getObject()     {         return obj;

Alternatively, here is a version that still emits a type error if the wrapped object is null.  I am really not sure whats better, so I offer both versions.

Index: src/org/armedbear/lisp/JavaObject.java

--- src/org/armedbear/lisp/JavaObject.java      (revision 12752) +++ src/org/armedbear/lisp/JavaObject.java      (working copy) @@ -108,6 +108,14 @@         return super.typep(type);     }

• @Override
• public LispObject STRING()
• {
• if (obj != null)
• return new SimpleString(obj.toString());
• return super.STRING();
• }

public final Object getObject()     {         return obj;

Please apply what you like the most.

I applied and committed the first one, on the basis that Java does the same conversion when using the + operator.

Thanks, Alessio