From: Christophe R. <cs...@ca...> - 2002-09-19 10:06:39
Attachments:
sbcl.51b.diff
|
Hi, Attached is a patch for 51b, which also incidentally fixes a bug in COERCE (where we weren't signalling an error of type TYPE-ERROR). The reason I'm posting it here is really that I'm not quite satisfied with the name READER-INTERNAL-ERROR for the condition type to signal (and also because I'm sure I'm missing some CALL-NEXT-METHOD-like functionality that would make the :REPORT clause for this new error simpler). So if anyone has any particular ideas about either of those, please let me know. Cheers, Christophe -- 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) |
From: William H. N. <wil...@ai...> - 2002-09-19 11:53:19
|
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 11:05:53AM +0100, Christophe Rhodes wrote: > The reason I'm posting it here is really that I'm not quite satisfied > with the name READER-INTERNAL-ERROR for the condition type to signal > (and also because I'm sure I'm missing some CALL-NEXT-METHOD-like > functionality that would make the :REPORT clause for this new error > simpler). So if anyone has any particular ideas about either of those, > please let me know. Maybe IMPOSSIBLE-NUMERICAL-INPUT or IMPOSSIBLE-NUMBER-SPECIFIED? And I doubt there's any CALL-NEXT-METHOD for :REPORT, because ANSI explicitly avoided requiring CLOS to be present for error reporting (perhaps anticipating squeals of anguish from Pittsburgh?) and then only reinvented some of the CLOS wheels in the condition system. -- William Harold Newman <wil...@ai...> "Unofficially, I advise that we erase the records and forget the whole thing." -- <http://www.terrybisson.com/meat.html> PGP key fingerprint 85 CE 1C BA 79 8D 51 8C B9 25 FB EE E0 C3 E5 7C |