refinement should be introduced?

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Vladimir Sedach <vsedach@gmail.com> wrote:

So what you're proposing is making the implicit sequence type be (or
array nil), where nil is treated like a zero-length array? I think
that's a good idea, it will make a lot of things simpler.

Vladimir

2010/7/12 Daniel Gackle <danielgackle@gmail.com>:

> I don't know if anyone other than us is using PS LOOP, but we use it
> heavily since our application is very loop-intensive. A continual source
> of bugs is looping over a null collection. Say BAR is null. The following
> will crash:
> (ps (loop :for foo :in bar :do (baz foo)))
> ...because the code expands to include (length bar). This is particularly
> annoying if you're running the code in CL as well, where looping over
> a null collection is just fine.
> We've been dealing with this like so:
> (ps (loop :for foo :in (or bar '()) :do (baz foo)))
> ... but this is ugly and more importantly very brittle, since it means
> tracking down every crash case-by-case.
> My question: what does everybody think about making PS LOOP
> accept null collections and just do nothing in that case? Something
> about this bothers me. It goes against the philosophy of PS, which
> declines to pretend that JS arrays are Lisp lists (something I fully agree
> with). But I'm inclined to make an exception in this case because the
> strict approach is so painful. And this of course raises the
> analogous question for any PS versions of MAPCAR, MAPC, etc.
> Daniel

> _______________________________________________
> parenscript-devel mailing list
> parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net
> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
>
>

_______________________________________________
parenscript-devel mailing list
parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel