From: Christophe R. <cs...@ca...> - 2006-10-30 21:05:13
|
Christophe Rhodes <cs...@ca...> writes: > Also, feel free to play about with this, come up with useful semantics > for sequences and funcallable sequences, and report back if it is > actually of use to you. Some time later... ... I think I have a handle on what I want to do with this. I would very much like it if people could test the patch at <http://www.doc.gold.ac.uk/~mas01cr/tmp/sequences.diff> for buildability and regressions (both functionality and speed), and then in conjunction with <http://www.doc.gold.ac.uk/~mas01cr/tmp/sequences.tar.gz> for the ability to do stuff with non-standard sequences. So, here's the deal. I actually think that there are useful semantics to be had from having user-extensible sequences; much more than with, say, user-extensible numbers; and as such I would like to merge the patch or something a bit like it. I am agnostic as to whether this is too destabilizing (or too against the SBCL philosophy of providing just what the spec says) for SBCL 1.0; I'm basically happy to wait if that's the consensus. (Additionally, though I haven't had to touch the compiler /very/ much I'm aware that I might have zapped some optimizations dear to Bill's heart (the stuff specialized on simple-vector for COERCE and friends, for instance); the patch really could do with some careful review: trust me on this one (or rather, don't trust me :-). You'll find in the tarball some documentation(!) as well as some code, but no test cases. The truly enthusiastic could supply me with some of those, too. Thanks, Christophe |