Alexey Dejneka <adejneka@...> writes:
> + Complex array type does not have corresponding type specifier.
I think it could do, maybe.
(AND (ARRAY T (14)) (NOT (SIMPLE-ARRAY T (14))))
could potentially be turned into
I did fiddle about with this a while back, but I can't remember what
problems it caused or solved.
[ BTW, apropos of compiler and type stuff, can I ask why the TRULY-THE
implementation in terms of THE-IN-ENVIRONMENT is commented out? It
would seem to me to be "the right thing", and it would admit a
solution to 235b by wrapping TRULY-THE around RESULT in
http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/ +44 1223 510 299/+44 7729 383 757
(set-pprint-dispatch 'number (lambda (s o) (declare (special b)) (format s b)))
(defvar b "~&Just another Lisp hacker~%") (pprint #36rJesusCollegeCambridge)
Christophe Rhodes <csr21@...> writes:
> [ BTW, apropos of compiler and type stuff, can I ask why the TRULY-THE
> implementation in terms of THE-IN-ENVIRONMENT is commented out? It
> would seem to me to be "the right thing", and it would admit a
> solution to 235b by wrapping TRULY-THE around RESULT in
> IR1-CONVERT-SRCTRAN. ]
I think the original reason was that the implementation of TRULY-THE
through TIE caused an infinite loop in the compiler. Now I have an
another good reason to keep TT as a dangerous hack, unavailable to the
end user: it is compiled much faster; THEs are costly to optimize
Regarding 235b. Now I tend to agree with Brown's solution. Most
source transforms already return the result with known type, it is
probably cheaper to add TRULY-THE to the few exceptions.
"Alas, the spheres of truth are less transparent than those of
illusion." -- L.E.J. Brouwer