Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!iuvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!ccvaxa!preece From: preece@ccvaxa.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: Common Lisp lacks portability (105 Message-ID: <31800006@ccvaxa> Date: 11 Dec 87 23:40:00 GMT References: <1421@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> Lines: 24 Nf-ID: #R:orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU:1421:ccvaxa:31800006:000:884 Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!preece Dec 11 17:40:00 1987 ruffwork@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU: > Would you use a language that can arbitrarily ignore some of your code > ??? Especially if different implementations ignored different > statements in the same code ??? Even if it didn't TELL you what it was > ignoring when ??? ---------- Well, C can ignore register declarations. Declarations in CL are similarly supposed to be YOUR promise that the named objects will be of a certain type, ALLOWING the system to make that assumption if it is convenient for it to do so. The behavior of CL under many kinds of errors is not completely required. Why does it offend you so much that when you lie to different CLs (by providing non-integer arguments) different things happen? If you aren't willing to promise not to lie, you shouldn't use declarations. -- scott preece gould/csd - urbana uucp: ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece arpa: preece@Gould.com