6 Apr
2008
6 Apr
'08
12:58 p.m.
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:49:19 +0100 (CET), "Leslie P. Polzer" leslie.polzer@gmx.net wrote:
I'm all for extending CL:CASE in a backwards-compatible way. Why would that be a problem for CL implementors?
It wouldn't be ANSI-compliant anymore.
While we already have come to the conclusion that the spec usually mentions implementation-defined arguments explicitly, I came across Lispworks' MAKE-HASH-TABLE[1] today.
They seem to be quite liberal about it (as I am -- an additional keyword arg shouldn't hurt anyone). I wonder what the policies of other implementors are...
Leslie
[1] http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/lw445/LWRM/html/lwref-86.htm