From: Douglas K. <sn...@us...> - 2015-06-11 19:15:16
|
The branch "master" has been updated in SBCL: via 45abecd96be4f0a30fadfc4e3c50d24fc988aaa0 (commit) from ef0b7ba98e18805755e951f1d1a230e0839ca9ce (commit) - Log ----------------------------------------------------------------- commit 45abecd96be4f0a30fadfc4e3c50d24fc988aaa0 Author: Douglas Katzman <do...@go...> Date: Thu Jun 11 15:14:05 2015 -0400 Unbreak clisp-hosted build, plus random whitespace removal. --- src/compiler/parse-lambda-list.lisp | 3 ++- tests/lambda-list.pure.lisp | 2 +- 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/compiler/parse-lambda-list.lisp b/src/compiler/parse-lambda-list.lisp index da241c8..980ce42 100644 --- a/src/compiler/parse-lambda-list.lisp +++ b/src/compiler/parse-lambda-list.lisp @@ -11,10 +11,11 @@ (/show0 "parse-lambda-list.lisp 12") +(eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute) (defconstant-eqx lambda-list-parser-states #(:required &optional &rest &more &key &aux &environment &whole &allow-other-keys &body :post-env :post-rest :post-more) - #'equalp) + #'equalp)) (eval-when (#-sb-xc :compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute) ;; Note: you usually want #. around LAMBDA-LIST-KEYWORD-MASK because for ;; a variety of reasons it shouldn't be a macro; and I don't want to rely diff --git a/tests/lambda-list.pure.lisp b/tests/lambda-list.pure.lisp index 9d02bbd..b2a0125 100644 --- a/tests/lambda-list.pure.lisp +++ b/tests/lambda-list.pure.lisp @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ ;; ;; If it can be a pattern, then it constrains the expected shape of input ;; in a way that can conflict with the remainder of the pattern. -;; e.g. Given (FOO (&WHOLE (BAZ BAR) X &OPTIONAL Y) MUM), would the +;; e.g. Given (FOO (&WHOLE (BAZ BAR) X &OPTIONAL Y) MUM), would the ;; outer list's second element need to be a list that matches both ;; (BAZ BAR) and (X &OPTIONAL Y)? Implementations disagree on this. ;; ----------------------------------------------------------------------- hooks/post-receive -- SBCL |