[cdr-discuss] Re: [RfC] WITH-READTABLE-ITERATOR
s11 at member.fsf.org
Fri Oct 3 02:42:59 UTC 2008
Ariel Badichi <abadichi-XgcMedQSbuTk1uMJSBkQmQ at public.gmane.org> writes:
> The outcome of having a non-symbol given as a generator name is not
> specified. Might it also be the signaling of a `program-error'
> condition, or should it remain unspecified?
If it were specified at all, program-error would be best. But I don't
think it's likely to be a problem regardless.
> The outcome of having a non-readtable given for iteration is not
> specified. Should it be the signaling of an error, or should it remain
I offer two extensions to the proposed standard:
1. Make READTABLE a "readtable designator", having its meaning from the
CLHS (where NIL indicates the initial readtable).
2. Specify that a type-error shall be signaled when READTABLE does not
evaluate to a readtable designator.
I write stuff at http://failex.blogspot.com/ now. But the post
formatter and themes are terrible for sharing code, the primary
content, so it might go away sooner or later.
More information about the cdr-discuss