[xuriella-devel] Xuriella vs Lispworks

[David Lichteblau]

Quoting Raymond Wiker (rwiker at gmail.com):
> On Sep 5, 2011, at 21:22 , Raymond Wiker wrote:
[...]
> > is non-conformant; the correct order should be something like 
> > 
> > (loop
> >  for base-uri being each hash-key
> >  in base-uris
> >  using (hash-value id)
[...]
> It turns out that there was also a bug in Lispworks <= 6.0, where
> literal strings in compiled code would be treated as strings of
> 'base-char, regardless of whatever
> lw:*default-character-element-encoding* had been set to. In Lispworks
> 6.1 this has been corrected, so the only thing that is required to
> compile and use Xuriella on Lispworks now is to change the order of
> two lines in report-samples. Any chance that this can be fixed?

Thanks.
Commit pushed to repo.or.cz (other mirrors should update soon); please test.

Sorry for the delay; LispWorks and its character types have always been
a source of confusion with cxml, and I wasn't confident regarding that
change.

I'm surprised though that you find Xuriella useful as-is on LispWorks:

While Xuriella itself is meant to be portable code, doesn't Plexippus
XPath need a trapless IEEE 754 implementation on LispWorks first?  My
recollection is that the only way to avoid traps and work with NaNs
and infinities is to use FFI calls...

Or maybe for real-world code that's not actually required.  However,
before a Lisp impl can be declared fully supported by Xuriella, we'd
have to run the test suite, which depends on many floating point corner
cases IIRC.

d.