[cdr-discuss] Three RFCs

[Leslie P. Polzer]

> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:49:19 +0100 (CET), "Leslie P. Polzer" <leslie.polzer at 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...

  Leslie

[1] http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/lw445/LWRM/html/lwref-86.htm