Brad Beveridge wrote: > 1) why is there THREAD.NAME, this looks like it isn't consistant with > the rest of the function names. The . is what I'm not liking.
I think that the '.' is used enough in CL and I'm trying to promote it. Probably I'll change it to a '-' later. > 2) would it be more flexible to pass keyword arguments to the thread > function that is require in SPAWN-THREAD? If you are referring to the &ALLOW-OTHER-KEYS, it is for implementation specific parameters to SPAWN-THREAD. > > It looks good. As part of the implementation I think there ought to > be a test suite that can test the conformance of a Lisp > implementation. As discussed in this thread, it is probably important > that global/special variables work the same way in all Lisps - or > provide a wrapping mechanism to portable access thread shared > variables. Of course. This must be standard. > > Cheers > Brad > Marco _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
