[cdr-discuss] Re: [RfC] WITH-READTABLE-ITERATOR
Tobias C. Rittweiler
tcr at freebits.de
Fri Oct 3 13:41:15 UTC 2008
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
> 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'll add that explicitly---it should signal a type error---, as it deems
to be useful that you can rely on it.
More information about the cdr-discuss