Re: [Sbcl-devel] Patch [2/2]: Downcase symbol names.

[<wil...@ai...>]

On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 06:57:20PM -0500, Brian Mastenbrook wrote:
> William Harold Newman wrote:
> > True, but is there something special about tweaking READTABLE-CASE
> > compared to setting *READ-BASE* to 16? It's not just a rhetorical
> > question --- for all I know, there is some formal fundamental divide
> > where READTABLE-CASE is on one side and *READ-BASE* is on the other.
> > But my informal impression was that software can reasonably expect
> > both of them to be in the default setting.
> 
> Is it reasonable to have SBCL check that these expectations are indeed 
> correct before building, so that the form of the failure is not a 
> catastrophic and indecipherable error but a specific message about the 
> non-default setting which is at fault? And why not just fix the setting 
> to our expected value instead of making the code resistant to :invert 
> readtable-case? The duration of the image used in bootstrapping is 
> limited, so presumably (|CL|:|SETF| (|CL|:|READTABLE-CASE| 
> |CL|:|*READTABLE*|) :|UPCASE|) is not problematic.

I think that'd be a perfectly reasonable little bit of caution, yes. 

-- 
William Harold Newman <wil...@ai...>
PGP key fingerprint 85 CE 1C BA 79 8D 51 8C  B9 25 FB EE E0 C3 E5 7C
Ubi saeva indignatio ulterius cor lacerare nequit. -- Jonathan Swift's epitaph