CLtL Chapter 8.5 (Re: Type propagation proposal)

[Marco Antoniotti]

A correction on my previous posts.

It looks like that my setup on my Mac (I don’t know if this applies to other people as well), messed up my SBCL upgrade.  After the third run of ‘install.sh’, the script was finally convinced to copy the ‘contrib’ folder as well.  Now SB-CLTL2 can be required as expected.

Cheers
—
MA



> On Dec 22, 2015, at 18:17 , james anderson <james.anderson at setf.de> wrote:
> 
> good evening;
> 
>> On 2015-12-22, at 17:46, Marco Antoniotti <marcoxa at cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear James,
>> 
>> I wish I had access to a “full glass” implementation of CLtL Chapter 8.5.  Non GPLed (sorry guys) is a requirement as well.
> 
> that is a noble goal, but may not necessary for the matter under discussion.
> 
>> 
>> I am not aware of the implementation you use in [dydra].com;
> 
> i had hoped it would be sufficiently clear for me to indicate that "i have never tried to validate my particular current use of the declaration facilities against some implementation other than sbcl” and, with respect to the dydra implementation, that "it compiles sparql queries to native code in sbcl”.
> 
>> if you refer to the “portable” one from Franz (or a variation), that still needs low-level support from each implementation.  If you have an implementation you wrote, that would be welcome as well.  But, AFAIK, at the time of this writing you cannot download or buy a CL implementation and hope for full-glass compliance with the CLtL2 chapter (except for Allegro, modulo the “return values switch”).
> 
> if your criteria has now evolved to "full glass compliance”, i have not done the necessary compliance testing to respond to that.
> the original note proposed that franz offers the only “working” version, whereby, as phrased, even non-compliance was permitted.
> to which i averred, that, by some measure of working, there is at least one other implementation.
> 
>> 
>> If you can point me to an implementation of CLtL Chapter 8.5 that would be good.
>> 
>> But I think that the best course of action is to lobby the CL implementors to support CTtL Chapter 8.5.  That would simplify life quite a bit.
> 
> i believe the more pertinent question for this thread would be which introspection facilities would be required to implement this extension to cffi and do those particular facilities have wide and consistent enough support to provide a basis for that extension.
> 
> best regards, from berlin,
> 

--
Marco Antoniotti