[imp-hackers] LOOP non-compliance

[Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll]

On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Nikodemus Siivola <
nikodemus at random-state.net> wrote:

> To play the devil's advocate here for a second, if we agree to take
> strict view of LOOP clause ordering, will others also take strict view
> of non-EQL DEFCONSTANTs like this?
>
>  (defconstant +unportable+ "foo")


Sounds fair. What restarts does SBCL set up in this case? Is it a
correctable error?

-- 
Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC
c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain)
http://juanjose.garciaripoll.googlepages.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/implementation-hackers/attachments/20120408/a87fccde/attachment.html>