HI > On May 8, 2019, at 18:24 , Michael Raskin <38a93...@rambler.ru> wrote: > > > Thank you for your comments. > >> * The proposal requires the presence of a CDR-NN package. Such a proposal >> should be made separately. FTTB if CDR-14 is used, only the CDR-NN feature >> should be provided. I would be in favor of a new CDR stating that a CDR-XX >> nickname could be added to a package implementing a given feature. > > I thought that maybe I don't want to create too many proposals at once. I > see, I will split. > >> * The proposal as is may not be portably implemented by a third party >> without resorting to implementation support which may or may not be there. >> The problematic operators are WITH-PARENT-ENVIRONMENT and >> ENVIRONMENT-ENTRY-NAMES. Do you see any way to provide it in a simple >> (read: non SBCL) way? >> >> Finally, COPY-ENVIRONMENT may and LEXICAL-ENVIRONMENT also be problematic. > > Note that B-level and C-level support requires some properties of underlying > implementation that do not currently hold for many popular ones.
I may have misread the proposal, but, AFAIU, even what you call “Level A” cannot be easily provided without a commitment by the implementations. > Also note that I want to provide common names for much more functionality > than I want to require. It is enough to have WITH-AUGMENTED-ENVIRONMENT for > B-level complieance, and COPY-ENVIRONMENT (or standalone AUGMENT-ENVIRONMENT) > is not required even on the C-level. It is purely a «please tell me if you > already provide this». > > Frankly, I think SLIME wants to do something that boils down to ability to > define ENVIRONMENT-ENTRY-NAMES, so that shouldn't be too bad. > > LEXICAL-ENVIRONMENT has very weak requirements, I think on most > implementations it can be defined by a third-party library. > > WITH-PARENT-ENVIRONMENT is definitely completely optional — on the other > hand, if the implementation never tracks parent environments, it is OK to > always have NIL there. LW already has SYS:MAP-ENVIRONMENT which looks like ENVIRONMENT-ENTRY-NAMES, so, yes, it is definitively doable, like everything else, given a “sufficiently supportive implementation/vendor”. I just feel that CDRs should not make too many requests on the implementation. Apart from that, I would also note that listing names should not be sufficient for a CDR. Functions and macros signatures should also be described (*), as well as types. As for the specific content, I would also explicitly refer to the CLtL2 Environment Section 8.5. All the best Marco Antoniotti (*) To the chagrin of the folks at Franz (you-know-why 3:) 3:) 3:) ) -- Marco Antoniotti, Associate Professor tel. +39 - 02 64 48 79 01 DISCo, Università Milano Bicocca U14 2043 http://bimib.disco.unimib.it Viale Sarca 336 I-20126 Milan (MI) ITALY Please check: http://cdac2019.lakecomoschool.org Please check: http://troncopackage.org Please check: https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/7394/network-bioscience Please note that I am not checking my Spam-box anymore. Please do not forward this email without asking me first (cum grano salis).
