[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.

I don't know.

CLHS 1.5.1.3, “Documentation of Extensions” says:
“A conforming implementation shall be accompanied by a document that separately
describes any features accepted by the implementation that are not specified in this
standard, but that do not cause any ambiguity or contradiction when added to the
language standard. Such extensions shall be described as being ``extensions to Common
Lisp as specified by ANSI <<standard number>>.''”

Is a conforming implementation required to signal an error when an argument
not defined by the standard occurs in the lambda list of a function?
More specifically, may a conforming program rely on syntax/grammar errors
being thrown?

  Leslie