commonlisp types

[Jon L White <jonl@lucid.com>]

re: How do you define "valid type specifier"?

Very syntactically.  I think its perfectly acceptable to have a set
of combination rules for making "words" in the type-specifier syntax,
even though some such "words" would be gibberish.

The important thing is that base-level types -- those defined in 
CLtL -- along with DEFSTRUCT extensions be recognizable.  They don't
have the problems that SATISFIES generates, or that a broken user
definition generates (such as your DEFTYPE FOO example).


By the bye, on another note, I haven't seen any implementation that
has the bug Kent wondered about earlier:
     (defun bar (x) (symbolp x))
     (defun foo (x)
       (flet ((bar (y) (integerp y)))
	 (typep x '(satisfies bar))))
     (foo 'x)
    The correct answer is T, but I bet a lot of implementations return NIL
    in compiled code.
Anyone know of an implementation for which this fails?


-- JonL --