Hi ABCL developers,
I found a strange behaviour of cl-colors happening only on ABCL.
[Issue] Symbols won't be exported on ABCL https://github.com/tpapp/cl-colors/issues/6
Though cl-colors unexports all symbols before defpackage when reloading the system, the :export clause in defpackage seems to be ignored. https://github.com/tpapp/cl-colors/blob/master/package.lisp#L5-L19
Any ideas?
Regards, Eitaro
_______________________________________________ Armedbear-devel mailing list Armedbear-devel@common-lisp.net http://mailman.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/armedbear-devel
This is a reproducible script.
---- (defpackage unexport-test (:export :a))
(eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute) (when (find-package :unexport-test) (do-symbols (symbol :unexport-test) (unexport symbol :unexport-test))))
(defpackage unexport-test (:export :a))
(prin1 (nth-value 1 (intern (string :a) :unexport-test)))
#+sbcl (sb-ext:exit) #-sbcl (cl-user::quit) ----
$ sbcl --load unexport-test.lisp :EXTERNAL
$ ccl --load unexport-test.lisp :EXTERNAL
$ abcl --load unexport-test.lisp :INTERNAL
深町英太郎 (Eitaro Fukamachi)
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Eitaro Fukamachi e.arrows@gmail.com wrote:
Hi ABCL developers,
I found a strange behaviour of cl-colors happening only on ABCL.
[Issue] Symbols won't be exported on ABCL https://github.com/tpapp/cl-colors/issues/6
Though cl-colors unexports all symbols before defpackage when reloading the system, the :export clause in defpackage seems to be ignored. https://github.com/tpapp/cl-colors/blob/master/package.lisp#L5-L19
Any ideas?
Regards, Eitaro
_______________________________________________ Armedbear-devel mailing list Armedbear-devel@common-lisp.net http://mailman.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/armedbear-devel
Hi Eitaro,
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Eitaro Fukamachi e.arrows@gmail.com wrote:
This is a reproducible script.
(defpackage unexport-test (:export :a))
(eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute) (when (find-package :unexport-test) (do-symbols (symbol :unexport-test) (unexport symbol :unexport-test))))
(defpackage unexport-test (:export :a))
(prin1 (nth-value 1 (intern (string :a) :unexport-test)))
If cl-colors depends on this behaviour, it's depending on behaviour the cl spec explicitly named "undefined". From the spec:
If the new definition is at variance with the current state of that package, the consequences are undefined; an implementation might choose to modify the existing package to reflect the new definition. (see http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/iiip/doc/CommonLISP/HyperSpec/Body/mac_defpac..., third sentence in the Description section)
the important bit is "an implementation *might* choose to modify"; ABCL currently is an implementation that doesn't modify. Essentially this means you can - in ABCL's current implementation - just leave out the second DEFPACKAGE form...
Of course, if you say this is pretty rare when compared to other implementations, I think we should seriously consider accepting a patch to change the behaviour. Do you know what the *exact* behaviours of SBCL and CCL are? Maybe it's not too hard to implement one of the two. Patch submission always very much welcome as well, of course!
Regards,
Hi Erik,
Thank your for your response.
If cl-colors depends on this behaviour, it's depending on behaviour the
cl spec explicitly named "undefined".
It explains clearly. Actually, I was not sure this was a bug of ABCL or not.
Of course, if you say this is pretty rare when compared to other
implementations, I think we should seriously consider accepting a patch to change the behaviour.
Though it could cause a portability issue, as long as the behaviour isn't defined in the spec, I'm not willing to change the behaviour of ABCL for now.
I'm gonna change cl-colors instead.
Best, Eitaro
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Erik Huelsmann ehuels@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Eitaro,
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Eitaro Fukamachi e.arrows@gmail.com wrote:
This is a reproducible script.
(defpackage unexport-test (:export :a))
(eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute) (when (find-package :unexport-test) (do-symbols (symbol :unexport-test) (unexport symbol :unexport-test))))
(defpackage unexport-test (:export :a))
(prin1 (nth-value 1 (intern (string :a) :unexport-test)))
If cl-colors depends on this behaviour, it's depending on behaviour the cl spec explicitly named "undefined". From the spec:
If the new definition is at variance with the current state of that package, the consequences are undefined; an implementation might choose to modify the existing package to reflect the new definition. (see http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/iiip/doc/CommonLISP/HyperSpec/Body/mac_defpac..., third sentence in the Description section)
the important bit is "an implementation *might* choose to modify"; ABCL currently is an implementation that doesn't modify. Essentially this means you can - in ABCL's current implementation - just leave out the second DEFPACKAGE form...
Of course, if you say this is pretty rare when compared to other implementations, I think we should seriously consider accepting a patch to change the behaviour. Do you know what the *exact* behaviours of SBCL and CCL are? Maybe it's not too hard to implement one of the two. Patch submission always very much welcome as well, of course!
Regards,
-- Bye,
Erik.
http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
_______________________________________________ Armedbear-devel mailing list Armedbear-devel@common-lisp.net http://mailman.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/armedbear-devel
armedbear-devel@common-lisp.net
-
Eitaro Fukamachi -
Erik Huelsmann