From: Daniel H. <dhe...@te...> - 2009-04-07 04:11:22
|
0) I know where the source is, did I miss the documentation? Q: Why do methods like sequence:remove ignore parameters? (declare (ignore from-end test test-not start end count key)) Thanks, Daniel |
From: Christophe R. <cs...@ca...> - 2009-04-07 05:35:18
|
Daniel Herring <dhe...@te...> writes: > 0) I know where the source is, did I miss the documentation? Apart from the paper published at ILC 07? No. > Q: Why do methods like sequence:remove ignore parameters? > (declare (ignore from-end test test-not start end count key)) Because they pass on the &rest list of arguments to a different function. The named keywords are there so that they are declared as acceptable arguments to the method. Best, Christophe |
From: Daniel H. <dhe...@te...> - 2009-04-07 05:50:23
|
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Christophe Rhodes wrote: > Daniel Herring <dhe...@te...> writes: > >> 0) I know where the source is, did I miss the documentation? > > Apart from the paper published at ILC 07? No. I see. ISTR kreuter mentioning at ILC09 that nobody used SBCL's extensible sequences... Possible marketing problem. >> Q: Why do methods like sequence:remove ignore parameters? >> (declare (ignore from-end test test-not start end count key)) > > Because they pass on the &rest list of arguments to a different > function. The named keywords are there so that they are declared as > acceptable arguments to the method. Missed that detail on the first read. Thanks, Daniel |
From: Christophe R. <cs...@ca...> - 2009-04-07 07:13:44
|
Daniel Herring <dhe...@te...> writes: > On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Christophe Rhodes wrote: >> Daniel Herring <dhe...@te...> writes: >> >>> 0) I know where the source is, did I miss the documentation? >> >> Apart from the paper published at ILC 07? No. > > I see. ISTR kreuter mentioning at ILC09 that nobody used SBCL's > extensible sequences... Possible marketing problem. I use them. Best, Christophe |