[Ecls-list] Status of CVS

Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll jjgarcia at users.sourceforge.net
Mon May 12 15:27:43 UTC 2008

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Waldek Hebisch
<hebisch at math.uni.wroc.pl> wrote:
>  I do not understand your argument.  AFAICS if code is correct it should
>  run both in sbcl and in other Lisps.  If code is wrong than implementations
>  which insert checks nicely report error while other Lisps crash or run
>  code ignoring problem.  Ignoring problems seem to be in Lisp spirit,
>  but it makes finding bugs much more difficult.

But this is what I mean. There may be code around that relies on those
automatic checks for functioning properly, expecting that errors will
be signaled when the functions are passed the wrong arguments.

>  Concerning programmer written check forms: to require them for debugging
>  looks backwards for me

You are twisting what I say. What I said is that writing code that
relies on type declarations to find errors, expecting that the lisp
will signal them, is a bad design. If my functions only admit certain
inputs, I should either write contracts that other library uses obey,
or insert explicit type checks into those functions.



Facultad de Fisicas, Universidad Complutense,
Ciudad Universitaria s/n Madrid 28040 (Spain)

More information about the ecl-devel mailing list