[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[adjustable arrays?] More FORMAT
- To: navajo!Moon%STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM@navajo.stanford.edu
- Subject: [adjustable arrays?] More FORMAT
- From: edsel!bhopal!jonl@navajo.stanford.edu (Jon L White)
- Date: Wed, 20 May 87 19:27:34 PDT
- Cc: navajo!berman%vaxa.isi.edu@navajo.stanford.edu, navajo!common-lisp%sail@navajo.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: David A. Moon's message of Tue, 19 May 87 17:46 EDT <870519174622.9.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Re: In some implementations all arrays are adjustable even if you didn't
explicitly ask for an adjustable array in make-array.
Isn't this a bug? It certainly provides a loophole for non-portable code
that isn't reasonably detectable as non-portable. For CLtL says
(1) on p289 that certain arguments to make-array "guarantee" that the
result will be a simple array;
(2) and on p28 that a simple array "is not to have its size adjusted
dynamically after creation".
You can imagine how someone using a system that doesn't detect this error
will fare when trying to run on another system that really can't adjust
simple arrays.
-- JonL --
- References:
- More FORMAT
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>