cdr-discuss December 2006

cdr-discuss@common-lisp.net

9 participants
6 discussions

Start a nNew thread

[cdr-discuss] http://scryed.org/fan/images/images/Mailer.php
by http＠common-lisp.net 23 Dec '06

23 Dec '06

1 0

[cdr-discuss] Various extensions proposed by vendors
by Marco Antoniotti (temporaneo) 15 Dec '06

15 Dec '06

Hi I just got the periodic newsletter from Franz and there is an interesting (and very useful) function defined that I have been using, with different name and slightly different semantics: READ- LINE-INTO. I would propose to publish it as a CDR, if the folks at Franz agree. Note that, AFAIU, a portable implementation is not quite possible. Cheers -- Marco

4 6

[cdr-discuss] CDR 3
by Gary King 15 Dec '06

15 Dec '06

I just want to say that even though, I haven't really had time to digest what Christophe has written, I think it looks great! I really like that you've been able to extend the "normal" CL sequence facilities so that you can use "regular" Lisp code with all kinds of new sequence types. That feels like a big win over having to rewrite everything with generic functions. -- Gary Warren King, metabang.com Cell: (413) 885 9127 Fax: (206) 338-4052 gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM

1 0

[cdr-discuss] What about CDR 3, then?
by Christophe Rhodes 14 Dec '06

14 Dec '06

Hi, I have plans to modify CDR 3 slightly, adding a non-portable test case to the Test Case section and improving the references. I appreciate that the issue that CDR 3 describes is largely theoretical, but are there any comments from anyone out there? Getting any feedback before the finalization date would obviously be useful; it may be a theoretical issue at the moment but I hope that it will become a practical issue in the not-distant future. Cheers, Christophe

4 21

[cdr-discuss] CDR-2 -- register-test-designator vs. keyword parameters
by Chris Dean 06 Dec '06

06 Dec '06

Why does genhash use the technique of registering hashing functions and equality predicates instead of using keyword parameters? Both LispWorks and Allegro use keyword parameters so that you can say (make-hash-table :test 'my-equal? :hash-function 'my-hash) http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/lw50/LWRM/html/lwref-86.htm http://www.franz.com/support/documentation/8.0/doc/implementation.htm#cl-ma… I find this more natural and intuitive that having a separate register-test-designator function. The register-test-designator seems too much like "action at a distance". To be fair SBCL has a technique similar to the CDR-2 proposal (see sb-ext::define-hash-table-test). Cheers, Chris Dean

3 4

[cdr-discuss] [CDR 2] What's the package?
by Pascal Costanza 03 Dec '06

03 Dec '06

Hi, [I am posting this as a regular Common Lisper, not as a CDR editor.] The specification of generic hash tables misses a specification of the package in which the functionality is to be found. The reference implementation defines a package net.hexapodia.hashtables with a nickname genhash. This should, IMHO, be part of the specification. Otherwise, we get into the situation as with the CLOS MOP, where each implementation uses its own package name for some semi-standard library. (This is admittedly not a serious issue, but it is inconvenient nonetheless.) On a more general note: Do we need a more general mechanism for assigning package names? One potential problem I see coming up is that each CDR uses its own package name, which could lead to a proliferation of package names which in turn is also quite inconvenient. Do we need a common CDR package for collecting different CDR proposals? This might be impractical as well because we (intentionally) do not have a way to approve CDRs. How would we avoid name clashes across different CDRs? Any ideas? Pascal -- Pascal Costanza, mailto:pc@p-cos.net, http://p-cos.net Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium

3 4

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

cdr-discuss December 2006