[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: TAGBODY-CONTENTS (Version 3)
- To: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- Subject: Issue: TAGBODY-CONTENTS (Version 3)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Tue, 4 Oct 88 17:19 EDT
Ok, I changed the first two paragraphs of the proposal slightly
to accomodate criticisms by Moon and Gray. Everything else is
Hopefully ready for release...
References: TAGBODY (pp 130-131 of CLtL)
Edit History: 13-Sep-88, version 1 by Walter van Roggen
02-Oct-88, version 2 by Pitman
(beef up rationale, clarify tag NIL is ok)
04-Oct-88, version 3 by Pitman (fix wording bug)
CLtL specifies that symbols and integers are valid tags
in a TAGBODY and that lists are valid forms in a TAGBODY
but is silent about other data types.
Also, NIL is both a symbol and a list. Some implementations
might permit (GO NIL) because they treat NIL as a tag,
while others might not permit because they treat NIL as a form.
TAGBODY treats symbols (including NIL) and integers as tags,
and treats conses as forms.
It is an error if an expression in a TAGBODY is not a symbol,
an integer, or a cons. Implementations are forbidden from
extending this syntax.
It is an error for the same (EQL) tag to appear more than once
in the body of a TAGBODY. (However, a TAGBODY may have the
same tag as another TAGBODY in which it nests, in which case
the tag in the outer TAGBODY is shadowed, as already specified.)
The same restrictions apply to all forms which implicitly use
TAGBODY, such as PROG and DO.
The proposed set of tags is expressionally adequate.
Other obvious candidate types have lurking problems that could
lead to subtle program bugs if permitted as tags. For example,
- Characters make bad tags because, for example,
(TAGBODY ... #\Return ... #\Newline ...)
will be an error in some implementations due to
(EQL #\Return #\Newline).
- Floats make bad tags because round-off error will vary
- Rationals have problems with reduction to lowest terms.
eg, (EQL 1/2 2/4). This doesn't vary between implementations
but may still cause surprises.
Symbolics Genera documents that only symbols or integers are permitted.
The restriction is enforced by the compiler, but not the interpreter.
Cost to Implementors:
A few simple checks are probably all that's needed. Probably most
implementations (both interpreters and compilers) already perform them.
Cost to Users:
Unlikely to affect any portable code.
If there are implementations which support other objects as tags
(floats, for example), there may be simple editing necessary.
One less place for portability problems to occur.
Makes the language description more precise.
This first appeared in ">GLS>clarifications.text" of 12/06/85.
Historical Note (JonL, Steele):
The reason pdp10 MacLisp allowed numbers, including flonums,
as tags was that Ira Goldstein's LLOGO (a LOGO system
written entirely in Lisp) just used READ for the statement
numbers, and they looked like floats; e.g., 1.1, 1.2, ... etc.