August 2009 - cl-serializer-devel@lists.common-lisp.net

[cl-serializer-devel] Two issues, one resolved, for CL-SERIALIZER in Allegro 8.1
by Andrew Philpot 24 Nov '10

24 Nov '10

#1. (SETF LOGBITP) is not defined in ACL 8.1 (nor in CLISP), and as far as I can tell isn't part of the standard nor can be portably defined. I'm changing (SETF (LOGBITP x y) z) to (SETF y (DPB z (BYTE 1 x) y) (2 places). Maybe (SETF LDB) is better? #2. It seems that cl-serializer assumes that objects of type BASE-CHAR must be 8-bit characters, and thus can be encoded in a single byte. But this isn't the case in Allegro, where (TYPEP (CODE-CHAR 257) 'BASE-CHAR) is true. I didn't find a good way to get into the type detection logic to cause multi-byte characters to do the right thing. Suggestions? Andrew

2 2

[cl-serializer-devel] (no subject)
by Andrew Philpot 24 Nov '10

24 Nov '10

[also sent to pc(a)p-cos.net] CL-SERIALIZER calls CLOSER-MOP:SLOT-DEFINITION-ALLOCATION on a class object that might be a STANDARD-CLASS and might not (e.g. a STRUCTURE-CLASS). In SBCL, both of these are defined, but in Allegro 8.1, the only method on this generic function is on STANDARD-CLASS. Does it make sense to (1) extend the GF for the Allegro case in CLOSER-MOP to return NIL or some other sensible value (2) embed an appropriate check in the CL-SERIALIZER client code or (3) do you have another suggestion? Thanks, Andrew Philpot USC ISI

2 2

[cl-serializer-devel] (no subject)
by Andrew Philpot 13 Aug '09

13 Aug '09

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:43:14 +0200 From: Pascal Costanza <pc(a)p-cos.net> To: Andrew Philpot <philpot(a)ISI.EDU> Subject: Re: CLOSER-MOP:SLOT-DEFINITION-ALLOCATION On 12 Aug 2009, at 23:26, Andrew Philpot wrote: > [also redirected to cl-serializer-devel] [I didn't see that in the headers, so I don't know how to respond to cl-serializer-devel.] > CL-SERIALIZER calls CLOSER-MOP:SLOT-DEFINITION-ALLOCATION on a class > object that might be a STANDARD-CLASS and might not (e.g. a > STRUCTURE-CLASS). In SBCL, both of these are defined, but in Allegro > 8.1, the only method on this generic function is on STANDARD-CLASS. > Does it make sense to (1) extend the GF for the Allegro case in > CLOSER-MOP to return NIL or some other sensible value (2) embed an > appropriate check in the CL-SERIALIZER client code or (3) do you have > another suggestion? Thanks a lot for asking. The CLOS MOP specification specifies methods for these accessor functions only for the CLOS metaobject classes, but explicitly not for structure classes (or other entities). Since Common Lisp implementations are allowed to do whatever they want for structure classes, I cannot ensure that whatever I want to define for structure classes in Closer to MOP will actually be portable (now and in the future). So I prefer not to touch structure classes. I think the best option for you is to provide your own layer on top of the CLOS MOP that abstracts away from these differences. So define something like: (defgeneric cl-serializer:slot-definition-allocation (...) (:method (... closer-mop:standard-slot-definition ...) (closer-mop:slot-definition-allocation ...)) (:method (... structure-slot ...) ...)) I hope this helps, Pascal - -- Pascal Costanza, mailto:pc@p-cos.net, http://p-cos.net Vrije Universiteit Brussel Software Languages Lab Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium

1 0