Re: [Sbcl-devel] [PATCH] Goodbye SB-ITERATE:ITERATE usage

[William H. N. <wil...@ai...>]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 04:20:42PM -0500, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> On Wed, 2001-12-19 at 15:38, William Harold Newman wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 05:56:19PM -0500, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> > > The attached patch removes all uses of SB-ITERATE:ITERATE from src/pcl. 
> > > It doesn't eliminate src/pcl/iterate.lisp or the various support
> > > infrastructure for ITERATE (yet).
> > --
> > a question
> > 
> > You wrote in a later message that you had removed the other
> > iterate.lisp stuff as well. Is that change sufficiently cleanly
> > separated from this one that it's easy for you to submit it as a
> > second patch, so that it's OK for me to merge this one as it stands?
> > Or would you prefer to submit all the goodbye-iterate.lisp stuff as a
> > single patch?
> 
> The no-gathering patch touches:
> 
> construct.lisp
> defclass.lisp
> defcombin.lisp
> dfun.lisp
> fast-init.lisp
> fngen.lisp
> macros.lisp
> std-class.lisp
> vector.lisp
> 
> in src/pcl, as well as package-list.lisp.expr.  The no-iterate patch
> touches:
> 
> cache.lisp
> construct.lisp
> defcombin.lisp
> methods.lisp
> std-class.lisp
> vector.lisp
> 
> in src/pcl.  It was my guess that you would prefer patches with
> narrowly-defined fixes (although a getting-rid-of-SB-ITERATE-totally
> path might have been narrowly defined enough for you).  I can do things
> either way:
> 
> 1) You apply the no-iterate patch and then I submit a no-gathering and
> no-SB-ITERATE patch once I can diff from CVS, or
> 2) I generate a mega-patch that does everything at once.
> 
> Your call.

OK, then why don't you do it as one big patch. (But I don't much care
either way. For me the usual reasons to break up patches are when they
can naturally be tested and/or rejected independently (e.g. a
conformance fix in PCL and an efficiency fix in X86 double-precision
floating point), or when they're hard to understand as a whole but
easier to understand as small comprehensible steps. Neither seems to
apply here.)

> As this applies to the patch, would you prefer that I go back and clean
> those comments up?  I meant to do a little rewriting of them before
> submitting the patch anyway (I think I cut-and-pasted one of the
> comments in cache.lisp three or four times with oh-so-slight
> variations).

I would appreciate more careful comments on the weird bits. If you
don't add them yourself, I'll probably merge your patch anyway and try
to elaborate on the comments myself, but I'd appreciate it if you can
take care of it.

-- 
William Harold Newman <wil...@ai...>
"Can't talk now. Must see Lord of the Rings, and then play more FFX. Is this a
great time to be alive, or what?" -- cmdrtaco on slashdot 2001-12-19
PGP key fingerprint 85 CE 1C BA 79 8D 51 8C  B9 25 FB EE E0 C3 E5 7C