[cdr-discuss] Re: [RfC] WITH-READTABLE-ITERATOR

[Tobias C. Rittweiler]

Ariel Badichi <abadichi at bezeqint.net> 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?

I'll leave it unspecified. Type violations of the "Arguments and Values"
sections result in undefined behaviour, and fall under implementation
realm.

> 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'll add that explicitly---it should signal a type error---, as it deems
to be useful that you can rely on it.

  -T.