open in SBCL
From: Antonio Menezes Leitao (Antonio.Leitao_at_evaluator.pt)
Date: 04/29/04
- Next message: Bruno Haible: "Re: The Hyperspec and portability between Common Lisp compilers (long)"
- Previous message: Tim Bradshaw: "Re: Macro lambda list"
- Next in thread: nikodemus_at_random-state.net: "Re: open in SBCL"
- Reply: nikodemus_at_random-state.net: "Re: open in SBCL"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:53:09 +0100
Hi everybody,
My initial impression that CMUCL and SBCL would have many things in common
is rapidly disappearing.
According to the Hyperspec (Function open):
An implementation is required to recognize all of the open keyword
options and to do something reasonable in the context of the host
operating system. For example, if a file system does not support
distinct file versions and does not distinguish the notions of deletion
and expunging, :new-version might be treated the same as :rename or
:supersede, and :rename-and-delete might be treated the same as
supersede.
Now, if you open a file for :output, specifying that :if-exists is
:new-version, and the file in fact exists, CLISP, Allegro, Lispworks and
CMUCL (all in Linux) apparently follow the Hyperspec suggestion and
treat :new-version as :supersede.
Contrary to its venerated father (and the explicit recommendation of
the Hyperspec), SBCL (in Linux) apparently prefers to treat :new-version
as :error, meaning that an error is signalled.
Is there a rational to this behaviour?
Thanks,
Antonio Leitao.
- Next message: Bruno Haible: "Re: The Hyperspec and portability between Common Lisp compilers (long)"
- Previous message: Tim Bradshaw: "Re: Macro lambda list"
- Next in thread: nikodemus_at_random-state.net: "Re: open in SBCL"
- Reply: nikodemus_at_random-state.net: "Re: open in SBCL"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|