[cdr-discuss] Three RFCs

[Pascal Costanza]

On 6 Apr 2008, at 12:58, Leslie P. Polzer wrote:
>
>> 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...

My impression is that most implementations have a liberal approach  
towards adding new keyword arguments to functions defined by ANSI  
Common Lisp. However, strictly speaking, that makes them non- 
conforming implementations. (But I would agree that ANSI Common Lisp  
is too strict in this regard.)


Pascal

-- 
1st European Lisp Symposium (ELS'08)
http://prog.vub.ac.be/~pcostanza/els08/

Pascal Costanza, mailto:pc at p-cos.net, http://p-cos.net
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab
Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium