On 6 Apr 2008, at 12:58, Leslie P. Polzer wrote:
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...
My impression is that most implementations have a liberal approach towards adding new keyword arguments to functions defined by ANSI Common Lisp. However, strictly speaking, that makes them non- conforming implementations. (But I would agree that ANSI Common Lisp is too strict in this regard.)
Pascal