Stephen Compall 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
> unspecified?

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 mailing list