Re: Allegro and Sbcl disagree on no-primary-method behavior



Pascal Costanza wrote:
Ken Tilton wrote:



Pascal Costanza wrote:

Ken Tilton wrote:



Edi Weitz wrote:

On Thu, 29 May 2008 12:11:53 -0400, Ken Tilton <kennytilton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


This has been my experience every time in porting from ACL to LW: LW
was compliant, ACL was easier to live with.



ps. I almost followed up with except in re developing a portable library. But as I said, a year's worth of kennycode takes only a day or two to get compiled under LW, and most of that stems from my ignorance of their astonishingly great IDE.



Yep, let's get rid of the fucking standard once and for all. Who
needs it anyway?



Exactly. Then there would be room for experimentation and different implementations could add interesting new extensions... whoa. What is that deja vu feeling I am having?

My understanding from Franz is that they love Mr. Dietz's compliance test (well, in at least one case they invoked it when asked why) but neither are they in the mood to break a lot of customer code (having invoked that at least once, IIRC).

In this case it looks like the standard is just plain wrong if one wants to follow The One True Lisp Way and trust us to know what we are doing, so compliance here would be compliance for it's own sake.



What part of define-method-combination is it that you don't get?


btw, dying is easy, comedy is hard.


You're trying to change topic again.

I was just trying to save you from Tfb the Elder complaining about you doing such a poor imitation of me.

define-method-combination solves the problem you seem to have.


I just checked the CLHS on d-m-c and the entry is longer than the Scheme standard. No thanks.

kt

--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
ECLM rant: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
ECLM talk: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
.

Quantcast