tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175266939384385294.post5913022619259711336..comments2023-10-21T05:51:00.709-07:00Comments on (within parens...): All things being equal...Marco Antoniottihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06513735748852658637noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175266939384385294.post-40220532875305008522011-02-27T02:56:20.438-08:002011-02-27T02:56:20.438-08:00I wasn't aware that mixing &optional and &...I wasn't aware that mixing &optional and &key arguments was considered "bad style". I was pointed this out and that SBCL raises a style-warning elsewhere as well. While I do see the point about not mixing &optional and &key (I can change the spec; I have no problems about it), I think that SBCL is erring a bit on the fascist side on a number of issues. Package locking being another. Oh well.<br /><br />MarcoMarco Antoniottihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06513735748852658637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175266939384385294.post-630598446793029772011-02-25T02:42:15.930-08:002011-02-25T02:42:15.930-08:00This may sound like a silly reason to change a spe...This may sound like a silly reason to change a spec, but isn't combining optional and keyword arguments considered bad style? Certainly SBCL won't shut up about it.akopahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14428561510266377413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175266939384385294.post-68829092254618928952011-01-31T22:01:44.242-08:002011-01-31T22:01:44.242-08:00AEQUALIS is perfect Latin, which, to the dismay of...AEQUALIS is perfect Latin, which, to the dismay of my wife (*), should be used instead of English as a basis of any programming language. Like Lingua Romana Perligata :)<br /><br />Having said so, I personally don't like EGAL, even if it has been proposed many years ago by Baker. I would settle for EQUIV or ==.<br /><br />Cheers<br />--<br />Marco<br /><br />(*) Who is Greek :)Marco Antoniottihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06513735748852658637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175266939384385294.post-67635149898827126692011-01-31T21:31:45.392-08:002011-01-31T21:31:45.392-08:00AEQUALIS seems to be a rather bad name, because it...AEQUALIS seems to be a rather bad name, because it's prone to mistyping. (I'd suggest to use EQUALS as well, as it should be familiar to many developers)<br /><br />(Btw, there's also EGAL equality, that Rich Hickey promotes: http://home.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/ObjectIdentity.html)Vsevolod Dyomkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07729454371491530027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175266939384385294.post-1621787598904076002011-01-31T03:59:07.067-08:002011-01-31T03:59:07.067-08:00Nope. The :TEST keyword is a "style" in...Nope. The :TEST keyword is a "style" in CL, cfr. all the functions that take it as a parameter and some of the libraires "out there". Methods on AEQUALIS do not need a :TEST keyword (which is not in the proposal). Of course, nothing prevents you from passing a :TEST keyword on one of *your* AEQUALIS definitions, but that is *your* choice. Needless to say, if you are doing something like that, you are most probably not exploiting CLOS.<br /><br />MAMarco Antoniottihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06513735748852658637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175266939384385294.post-50316265042915310652011-01-31T02:57:25.108-08:002011-01-31T02:57:25.108-08:00How would that replace the :TEST keyword? Most met...How would that replace the :TEST keyword? Most methods of AEQUALIS depend in their behaviour on at least one extra parameter besides the objects to be compared, thus to be able to supply those, you'd need to have a :TEST keyword or similar...Maciej Katafiaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14195739463870991895noreply@blogger.com