Ariel Badichi <abadichi-XgcMedQSbuTk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org> writes:
The outcome of having a non-symbol given as a generator name is not specified. Might it also be the signaling of a `program-error' condition, or should it remain unspecified?
If it were specified at all, program-error would be best. But I don't think it's likely to be a problem regardless.
The outcome of having a non-readtable given for iteration is not specified. Should it be the signaling of an error, or should it remain unspecified?
I offer two extensions to the proposed standard: 1. Make READTABLE a "readtable designator", having its meaning from the CLHS (where NIL indicates the initial readtable). 2. Specify that a type-error shall be signaled when READTABLE does not evaluate to a readtable designator. -- I write stuff at http://failex.blogspot.com/ now. But the post formatter and themes are terrible for sharing code, the primary content, so it might go away sooner or later.