[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: ADJUST-ARRAY-NOT-ADJUSTABLE (Version 8)
- To: Jon L White <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Issue: ADJUST-ARRAY-NOT-ADJUSTABLE (Version 8)
- From: Barry Margolin <barmar@Think.COM>
- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 15:53 EST
- Cc: email@example.com, X3J13@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: <8903160732.AA11607@bhopal>
What happens in implementations that allow all arrays to be adjusted?
If you require that (typep x 'simple-array) implies (not
(adjustable-array-p x)), I see two possible resolutions: 1) such
implementations are not conforming; 2) the type SIMPLE-ARRAY is empty.
I find (1) distasteful, because non-adjustable arrays and the
SIMPLE-ARRAY type exist solely for the benefit of implementations that
need them, and this would require support of these concepts in
implementations that don't derive any benefit from them. I think (2)
makes the SIMPLE-ARRAY type pretty useless, since a portable program
can't expect anything to be of this type (FIXNUM had this problem until
we fixed it in Hawaii).