Re: WG: Recovering the once true meaning of type NIL in LOOP

I notice the MIT loop macro (which is what I normally use) gives

(macroexpand '(loop for (a b c) of-type (integer) in x do nil))

(LET ((A 0) (B NIL) (C NIL) (#:G10173004 X))
 (DECLARE (TYPE LIST #:G10173004) (TYPE INTEGER A))
 ...

I guess you'd view it as non-compliant, though I thought one of the
goals of the spec was to codify existing practice, which suggests
that in this case it's the spec that's at fault.

I'm also surprised not to see anything about the interpretation of 
nil as a type in the spec (not that I've searched it very hard), but
I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before, along with, for that 
matter, the degree to which MIT and other implementations comply.

So I'll now return to my tradition of avoiding loop issues by 
sticking with MIT loop.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
clisp-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clisp-devel