[cdr-discuss] Re: Detecting implementations of CDR specifications...

On Jun 11, 2013, at 24:47 , Pascal J. Bourguignon pjb@informatimago.com wrote:

Antoniotti Marco antoniotti.marco@disco.unimib.it writes:

...

Dear all,

following up the CDR discussion that took place aside the European Lisp Symposium in Madrid a week ago, I prepared this document that specifies how a CL environment can test for the "presence" of a given CDR.

I wanted to pass it around before submitting it formally to the CDR editors.

Specify what format 'n' has: the number of the CDR, represented in base ten without leading 0s.

Good point.

2.1.2)

If multiple implementations of a given CDR are expected, perhaps we should have keywords such as: :LISP=CL :BASE-CHAR=CHARACTER or :WORD-SIZE=64 on *features*, so we could have:

  CDR-{n}={implementation-identifier}

#+CDR-{n}=com.informatimago.common-lisp.cdr-{n} (com.informatimago.common-lisp.cdr-{n}:stuff)

#+CDR-{n}=alexandria (alexandria:stuff)

#-CDR-{n} (do-my-own-stuff)

So specify 2) that implementations of CDRs should do two things:

(pushnew :cdr-{n} *features*) (push :cdr-{n}={implementation-identifier} *features*)

This is interesting, but I am afraid it introduces a source of extra variability. I am assuming that a CDR should represent a "state of affairs" that is already agreed upon. In any case, I think this can go in a subsequent CDR.

2.1.3)

The absence of :cdr-{i} doesn't let infer anything about the present or absent of CDRs from *features*. The presence of :cdr-{n} should imply the presence of :cdr-{i}. What the presence of :cdr-{i} tells us, is the meaning of the absence of :cdr-{n}: it means the CDR is not implemented.

So:

#+(AND CDR-{i} CDR-{n})   should be equivalent in meaning to
#+CDR-{n}   and means CDR-{n} is present (definitely).

#+(AND CDR-{i} (not CDR-{n})) means CDR-{n} is absent (definitely).

#-(and CDR-{i} CDR-{n}) is equivalent to      
#+(or (not CDR-{i}) (not CDR-{n})) which is not helpful:

      - CDR-{n} could implemented, but just :cdr-{n} not on
        *features*, which is possible since CDR-{i} is not
        implemented.

      - CDR-{n} could be not implemented, and therefore  :cdr-{n}
        is rightly not on *features*.


#-(and CDR-{i} (not CDR-{n})) is equivalent to      
#+(or (not CDR-{i}) CDR-{n}) which may mean that:
either
   cdr-{i} is absent and cdr-{n} is absent (see above)
or cdr-{i} is absent and cdr-{n} is present, in case cdr-{n} is
   implemented, but not cdr-{i},
or cdr-{i} is present and cdr-{n} is present (see first case).
But the condition doesn't let us distinguish.

In conclusion, the only interesting expressions are:

#+cdr-{i} (is-implemented CDR-{i}) #-cdr-{i} (is-not-implemented CDR-{i})

#+cdr-{n} (is-implemented CDR-{n}) #+(and cdr-{i} (not cdr-{n})) (is-not-implemented CDR-{n}) #+(and (not cdr-{i}) (not cdr-{n})) (we-don-t-know-anything)

I take you are referring to the :CDR-i where 'i' is the one that may be assigned to the proposal. Yes. All you say is fine.

Cheers

-- Marco Antoniotti