Re: #;
- From: "Alex Mizrahi" <udodenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:22:35 +0200
KMP> Btw, NIL was the New Implementation of Lisp (a lisp implementation for
KMP> the VAX some years ago), and #+NIL actually did have an implementation
KMP> it was defined in. I don't recommend it for conditionals. #+(or) is
KMP> safer, though not terribly intelligible to everyone. #+ignore is
KMP> something I've seen enough people use that it's unlikely anyone would
KMP> make :ignore feature and expect it to work.
#+nil is widely used in SBCL implementation source code, so it's unlikely
SBCL can be compiled with NIL :)
grepping for #+nil through my libraries collection shows that many popular
libs use it, including SLIME, S-XML, parenscript, Iterate, arnesi.. so one
who pushes NIL into features will break quite a lot of software :)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: #;
- From: Kent M Pitman
- Re: #;
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: RFC: Extending method specializers
- Next by Date: Re: self-managed freelist for class instances
- Previous by thread: Re: #;
- Next by thread: Re: #;
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
