143 lines (122 with data), 6.2 kB
SBCL Hacking Guide
(This is not a most actively maintained file, but recommended
Preferred patch format is output from "git format-patch", including
the commit message.
The commit message should explain the why and how of the change. See
existing commit messages for examples -- for a truly trivial changes
little is needed, but in most cases more is better.
Please include test-cases in your patch if at all possible: if you're
not sure which file in tests/ to put your test case in, just pick one
that seems vaguely appropriate.
Please format your submission for ease of reading: unless the change
is whitespace only, avoid re-indenting code you are not touching, etc.
Unless your change is large and best understood as a series of
sequential changes, please send it in as single patch.
If your patch includes algorithmic changes, explain them. If your
patch uses a published algorithm, please include a link to the paper.
We aren't always as well-educated as we'd like to...
Ready-to-apply patches should be submitted via Launchpad: please add
the tag "review" to the associated bug (create new bug with name if
there isn't one about the issue yet.)
Patches requiring more widespread discussion and feedback should be
sent to the sbcl-devel mailing list.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask them on sbcl-devel,
or the IRC channel #firstname.lastname@example.org.
See also PRINCIPLES and TLA files.
Most of the style hints in the Lisp FAQ apply.
When porting code we prefer code which factors dependencies into a set
of interface functions and constants and includes implementations of
the interface for the different systems.
Reader conditionals are frowed upon. Sometimes they're the least
of all evils, but think thrice.
Phrases are not capitalized.
Sentences are capitalized.
Periods terminate sentences.
Periods separate phrases from succeeding sentences, e.g.
;;; the maximum number of transformations we'll make before
;;; concluding we're in an infinite loop and bailing. This can
;;; be changed, but it is an error to change it while we're
;;; solving a system.
(defvar *max-n-transformations* 10)
Lisp in comments is capitalized.
Symbol names are capitalized.
Function documentation can be a description of what the function
;;; Parse the arguments for a BDEFSTRUCT call, and return
;;; (VALUES NAME DEFSTRUCT-ARGS MAKE-LOAD-FORM-FUN BDEFSTRUCT-STYPE),
;;; where NAME is the name of the new type, DEFSTRUCT-ARGS is the
;;; munged result suitable for passing on to DEFSTRUCT,
;;; MAKE-LOAD-FORM-FUN is the make load form function, or NIL if
;;; there's none, and BDEFSTRUCT-SUPERTYPE is the direct supertype
;;; of the type if it is another BDEFSTRUCT-defined type, or NIL
(defun parse-bdefstruct-args (nameoid &rest rest)
or a remark about the function, e.g.
;;; a helper function for BDEFSTRUCT in the #+XC-HOST case
(defun uncross-defstruct-args (defstruct-args)
If you're talking about what the function does, ordinarily you
should just say what the function does, e.g.
;;; Return the first prime number greater than or equal to X.
(defun primify (x) ..)
instead of telling the reader that you're going to tell him what
the function does, e.g.
;;; PRIMIFY returns the first prime number greater than or
;;; equal to X.
(defun primify (x) ..)
;;; When you call this function on X, you get back the first
;;; prime number greater than or equal to X.
(defun primify (x) ..)
Documentation for public functions belongs in a docstring.
Documentation for internal functions belongs mostly in a comment.
In general, if you can express it in the code instead of the comments,
do so. E.g. the old CMUCL code has many comments above functions foo
that say things like
;;; FOO -- interface
If we were going to do something like that, we would prefer to do it by
(Instead, for various other reasons, we centralize all the exports
in package declarations.) The old "FOO -- interface" comments are bad
style because they duplicate information (and they illustrate one
of the evils of duplicating information by the way that they have
drifted out of sync with the code).
There are a number of style practices on display in the code
which are not good examples to follow:
* using conditional compilation to support different architectures,
instead of factoring the dependencies into interfaces and providing
implementations of the interface for different architectures;
* in conditional compilation, using a common subexpression over and
over again, e.g. #+(OR X86 X86-64), when the important thing is
that the platform supports single-instruction CAS. If you have to
do something like that, define a new FOO feature, write #+FOO in
many places, and arrange for the FOO feature to be set once and
only once -- probably in make-config.sh. (That way future
maintainers won't curse you.)
* putting the defined symbol, and information about whether it's
exported or not, into the comments around the definition of the symbol;
* naming anything DO-FOO if it isn't an iteration macro
* not using a consistent abbreviation style in global names (e.g.
naming some things DEFINE-FOO and other things DEF-BAR, with
no rule to determine whether the abbreviation is used).
* using lots of single-colon package prefixes (distracting and hard
to read, and obstacles to reaching package nirvana where
package dependencies are a directed acyclic graph) or even
double-colon package prefixes (hard to understand and hard
to maintain). (One exception: I've sometimes been tempted to
add a CL: prefix to the definition of every CL symbol (e.g.
(DEFUN CL:CADDDR (..) ..) as reminders that they're required by
ANSI and can't be deleted no matter how obscure and useless some
of them might look.:-)
Many of these are common in the code inherited from CMUCL. We've
eliminated them in some places, but there's a *lot* of code inherited