Re: GSOC | Extending Common Lisp support

[Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>]

On 04/28/2012 01:18 PM, Jamison Hope wrote:
> I don't have a complete answer for you, but here's an additional
> data point that might help:
>
> $ kawa --lisp
> #|kawa:1|# <gnu.lists.FString>
> <unknown>: warning - no declaration seen for <gnu.lists.FString>
> unbound location <gnu.lists.FString>
> at gnu.mapping.Location.get(Location.java:67)
> at atInteractiveLevel$1.run(stdin)
> at gnu.expr.ModuleExp.evalModule2(ModuleExp.java:299)
> at gnu.expr.ModuleExp.evalModule(ModuleExp.java:200)
> at kawa.Shell.run(Shell.java:279)
> at kawa.Shell.run(Shell.java:194)
> at kawa.Shell.run(Shell.java:175)
> at kawa.repl.main(repl.java:884)
> #|kawa:2|# gnu.lists.FString
> class gnu.lists.FString
> #|kawa:3|# ^D
>
> So, check where Kawa handles class literals enclosed in angle brackets.
> Maybe it's in Scheme-only code (and therefore another candidate for
> refactoring).

The first question is what *should* be the syntax.  The angle-bracket
syntax is semi-deprecated; I now recommend plain gnu.lists.FString
instead of <gnu.lists.FString>, since I think the former just adds
unneeded noise.

So what syntax would be most idiomatically Common Lisp?  I don't know.
Note we also have the option of using a namespace, for example:
  class:gnu.lists.FString
though that may also just add clutter without clarity.  Still, somthing
like that may be needed if we ever do a "pedantic" Common Lisp mode.
--
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/