- cdr-discuss - mailman3.common-lisp.net

[cdr-discuss] What about CDR 3, then?
by Christophe Rhodes 14 Dec '06

14 Dec '06

Hi, I have plans to modify CDR 3 slightly, adding a non-portable test case to the Test Case section and improving the references. I appreciate that the issue that CDR 3 describes is largely theoretical, but are there any comments from anyone out there? Getting any feedback before the finalization date would obviously be useful; it may be a theoretical issue at the moment but I hope that it will become a practical issue in the not-distant future. Cheers, Christophe

4 21

[cdr-discuss] CDR-2 -- register-test-designator vs. keyword parameters
by Chris Dean 06 Dec '06

06 Dec '06

Why does genhash use the technique of registering hashing functions and equality predicates instead of using keyword parameters? Both LispWorks and Allegro use keyword parameters so that you can say (make-hash-table :test 'my-equal? :hash-function 'my-hash) http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/lw50/LWRM/html/lwref-86.htm http://www.franz.com/support/documentation/8.0/doc/implementation.htm#cl-ma… I find this more natural and intuitive that having a separate register-test-designator function. The register-test-designator seems too much like "action at a distance". To be fair SBCL has a technique similar to the CDR-2 proposal (see sb-ext::define-hash-table-test). Cheers, Chris Dean

3 4

[cdr-discuss] [CDR 2] What's the package?
by Pascal Costanza 03 Dec '06

03 Dec '06

Hi, [I am posting this as a regular Common Lisper, not as a CDR editor.] The specification of generic hash tables misses a specification of the package in which the functionality is to be found. The reference implementation defines a package net.hexapodia.hashtables with a nickname genhash. This should, IMHO, be part of the specification. Otherwise, we get into the situation as with the CLOS MOP, where each implementation uses its own package name for some semi-standard library. (This is admittedly not a serious issue, but it is inconvenient nonetheless.) On a more general note: Do we need a more general mechanism for assigning package names? One potential problem I see coming up is that each CDR uses its own package name, which could lead to a proliferation of package names which in turn is also quite inconvenient. Do we need a common CDR package for collecting different CDR proposals? This might be impractical as well because we (intentionally) do not have a way to approve CDRs. How would we avoid name clashes across different CDRs? Any ideas? Pascal -- Pascal Costanza, mailto:pc@p-cos.net, http://p-cos.net Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium

3 4

[cdr-discuss] Order of arguments in hashref
by Chris Dean 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

Thanks for putting together the genhash proposal. It's a much needed extension to CL hash tables! I might be coming late to the discussion of genhash, so I'll start with a simple question: Why is the order of arguments in HASHREF first the key then the table rather that the table and then the key? Here is how it is now: (hashref key table &optional (default nil)) It has always bothered me that CL:GETHASH, CL:REMHASH, and CL:NTH have the accessor (in this case the key and the index) as the first arg while AREF, SVREF, CHAR, SCHAR, and ELT have the the container as the first arg (in this case the array, vector, string, and sequence). I think the answer to my question might be that HASHREF is consistent with the calling order in GETHASH. My preference is to have the ordering be table and then key and be consistent with ELT et.al. Cheers, Chris Dean

2 1

[cdr-discuss] notes on CDR 2 - generic hash table
by Gary King 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

I sent this to Ingvar back in the day; since there is now a public process I thought I'd send it again "for the record" Firstly, thanks for putting CDR 2 out there! (and thanks to powers behind the CDR process too). A few comments: 1. typo in last paragraph of section 0.2.1: "possibel" -> "possible" 2. Naming. I like longer names (they are easier to read and completion makes them easier to type). I'd rather: I also like consistency and hate abbreviations (I can never remember which abbreviation to use <smile>). So I'd suggest: hash-lookup hash-delete hash-empty! hash-map hash-count hash-size generic-hash-table-p I like lookup because reference (and ref) seem unclear to me whereas lookup is what we're doing. I like delete rather than remove because delete in Common Lisp signifies that the function is destructive. I like empty! rather than clear (or clr) because the meaning of empty if more obvious (to me). The ! further signifies that something drastic is happening. I like hash-map, hash-count and hash-size over map-generic-hash, generic-hash-table-count and generic-hash-table- size because they are more consistent with the naming of the other functions and because they are also shorter to type). FWIW, I'd rather that the hash-table argument went first in every function (I don't value consistency with the existing hash table implementation very highly). Lisp varies as to where is puts the "container" argument (nth versus elt versus aref... sigh) but here it is more likely that you are dispatching on the table and not the key and doing this would mean that every function had the table as it's second argument (I'd change hash-map too). (A big shout out to Chris Dean on this one!). HTH, and thanks again, -- Gary Warren King, metabang.com Cell: (413) 885 9127 Fax: (206) 338-4052 gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM

2 1

[cdr-discuss] CDR announcements / mailing lists
by Pascal Costanza 22 Nov '06

22 Nov '06

Hi everyone, I have posted the recent two announcements about prolongation of CDRs to all three CDR-related mailing lists. We don't have the intention to post such and similar announcements to all three lists in the future. I have only done this because I assume that currently, people may not be signed up to the appropriate mailing lists, especially because cdr-discuss has only been a recent addition. In the future, we will restrict announcements to cdr-announce exclusively. As advertised, cdr-discuss is for discussion about specific CDRs, and cdr-devel is for discussion about CDR itself. There may be some overlap between cdr-discuss and cdr-devel when it comes to the CDR document describing the CDR process, but I guess this will pose no serious problems. Cheers, Pascal -- Pascal Costanza, mailto:pc@p-cos.net, http://p-cos.net Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium

1 0

[cdr-discuss] Initial period for CDR 2 prolonged.
by Pascal Costanza 22 Nov '06

22 Nov '06

Since the cdr-discuss mailing list is only a few days old, and on request by the author, we have prolonged the initial period before finalization of CDR 2 "A generic hash table interface specification for Common Lisp" by Ingvar Mattsson until January 15, 2007. Ingvar Mattsson welcomes discussions about this CDR at cdr-discuss to which he is subscribed himself. Please mention CDR 2 in the subject line in your postings about this CDR. Pascal -- Pascal Costanza, mailto:pc@p-cos.net, http://p-cos.net Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium

1 0

[cdr-discuss] Initial period for CDR 3 prolonged.
by Pascal Costanza 21 Nov '06

21 Nov '06

Since the cdr-discuss mailing list is only a few days old, and on request by the author, we have prolonged the initial period before finalization of CDR 3 "Revisiting CONCATENATE-SEQUENCE" by Christophe Rhodes until January 15, 2007. Christophe Rhodes welcomes discussions about this CDR at cdr-discuss to which he is subscribed himself. Please mention CDR 3 in the subject line in your postings about this CDR. Pascal -- Pascal Costanza, mailto:pc@p-cos.net, http://p-cos.net Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium

1 0