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.
I don't know.
CLHS 1.5.1.3, “Documentation of Extensions” says: “A conforming implementation shall be accompanied by a document that separately describes any features accepted by the implementation that are not specified in this standard, but that do not cause any ambiguity or contradiction when added to the language standard. Such extensions shall be described as being ``extensions to Common Lisp as specified by ANSI <<standard number>>.''”
Is a conforming implementation required to signal an error when an argument not defined by the standard occurs in the lambda list of a function? More specifically, may a conforming program rely on syntax/grammar errors being thrown?
Leslie