On 15 March 2010 22:58, Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.info> wrote: > Isn't supplying :unspecific as the value of :type always to be avoided? > > The CLHS says: > > "Portable programs should not supply :unspecific for any component." > [documentation for function MAKE-PATHNAME] > > and in section 19.2.2.2.3 :UNSPECIFIC as a component value > > "A conforming program must never unconditionally use a :unspecific as > the value of a pathname component because such a value is not > guaranteed to be permissible in all implementations." > > So instead of supplying this for a couple of cases and then trying to > avoid it for others, shouldn't we be avoiding it altogether? > > I confess that I don't fully understand this issue, since it seems like > the CLHS makes it clear that NIL is /not/ fully equivalent to > :unspecific (since the latter is not "overwritten" in a merge), and yet > tells us not to use the latter.... > > If anyone can clarify this, it would be great.... >
Oops. I hadn't paid attention to this paragraph. Should we use :unspecific based on a whitelist of known-working implementations, or should we just avoid it altogether? [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] Artificial intelligence is what we don't know how to do yet — Alan Kay _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
