Re: [GSoC] Parameter protocols in CL

[Jamison Hope <jrh at theptrgroup dot com>]

On Jul 24, 2012, at 10:40 AM, Charles Turner wrote:

> On 23 July 2012 23:22, Charles Turner <chturne@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The extended keyword list is now implemented
>
> Actually, it has a bug I'm not sure about:
>
> #|kawa:14|# (defun test (&key ((:environment env-arg-name) 10)) (list
> env-arg-name))
> (Lambda/36/fl:0
>  (#!key
>   (ENVIRONMENT:/37/fl:40040(ignorable) (Quote
>                                          #! 
> undefined ::java.lang.Object)))
>  (Let#37
>    (({COMMON-LISP}:ENV-ARG-NAME/36/fl:40040(ignorable) =
>      (If (Apply (Quote #<procedure eq?>)
>            (Ref/69/ENVIRONMENT:/Declaration[ENVIRONMENT:/37])
>            (Quote #!undefined)) ;; line 16 below surely should make
> this conditional false?
>        (Quote 10)
>        (Ref/70/ENVIRONMENT:/Declaration[ENVIRONMENT:/37])))) ;; ...
> and return this
>    (Apply line:14:53 (Ref/74/Declaration[applyToArgs/2])
>      (Ref/72/list)
>      (Ref/73/{COMMON-LISP}:ENV-ARG-NAME/Declaration[{COMMON- 
> LISP}:ENV-ARG-NAME/36]))))]
> #|kawa:15|# (test)
> (10)
> #|kawa:16|# (test :environment 12)
> (10)
>
> Can anyone see what's wrong with that syntax? Am I misunderstanding
> how the keyword arguments are bound?

Hi Charles,

I'm back from my vacation now, still attempting to get caught up on  
what I
missed last week. [Thanks to Per & Helmut for helping Charlie stay on  
track
during my absence!]

Two questions:

1. What does (disassemble #'test) show?

2. I see you made your own SVN server, good idea. Is the above code  
snippet
reflecting its top-of-trunk (r7277)? I'm trying to compile it and hit  
a few
snags -- the first simple one was that gnu.mapping.Symbol#getLocalPart  
has
two return statements, so I commented out the latter. But now I get

std_syntax.scm:324:31: junk at end of specifier for parameter 'env'  
after type gnu.mapping.Environment
std_syntax.scm:324:31: misformed formals in lambda

which seems incorrect, as you haven't touched that file. So it must be  
due to
some of these lambda changes. Perhaps it's related to this current  
problem?

OK, #2 was a multi-part question.

-Jamie

--
Jamison Hope
The PTR Group
www.theptrgroup.com