[cl-typesetting-devel] CLISP support

[Marc Battyani]

"Klaus Weidner" <kw at w-m-p.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 06:00:25PM -0500, Klaus Weidner wrote:
> > I fixed the max-height problem for all platforms in the attached patch,
>
> ... which I forgot to attach. Here it is.

OK but according to the clisp developpers. Your workarounds are broken also:
To sum up the discussion: Sam was ok but not Bruno so it's no.

"Sam Steingold" <sds at gnu.org> wrote:
> As I said (and Paul confirmed), using iteration variables in FINALLY is
> broken.  Just don't do it.  Your workarounds are just as broken as the
> original code.
>
> There are many options: MAP, DO, REDUCE &c &c &c.
>
> What you want to do - use iteration variables in FINALLY - is not an
> option for portable code.

"Sam Steingold" <sds at gnu.org> wrote:
> > * Bruno Haible <oehab at pyvfc.bet> [2004-04-26 13:30:49 +0200]:
> >
> >> You can try the appended patch though, I don't think it will hurt.
> >> Bruno, what do you think?
> >
> > It's futile to change the implementation to match some reading of an
> > ambiguous standard. Next time someone will come and prefer the reverse
> > reading. We have to stop here and acknowledge that the standard is
> > ambiguous.
[snipped patch...]
> based on this discussion, I will add a note to impnotes that we consider
> iteration variables in FINALLY to be unportable code.

In clisp these 2 forms are clearly not equivalents though IMO they should:

[3] > (loop for i on '(1 2 3 4 5)
                for j from 0
                while (< j 5)
                finally (return i))
(5)

[3] > (loop for i = '(1 2 3 4 5) then (cdr i)
                for j from 0
                while (< j 5)
                finally (return i))
NIL

And in any case the clisp developpers say that even the second one is not
supported though it works.
The standard is not clearly specified here.

So do I put your current patches or do you want to look at them again?
BTW the multi-page table support has been written by Dmitri. Maybe we should
put him in copy?

Let's close this case anyway. We have already spent way too much time on it.
Just give me your final patches and let's go back to more productive and
interesting code.

Marc