[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
the array type mess....
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: the array type mess....
- From: Jon L White <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jan 88 19:30:02 PST
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: Sandra J Loosemore's message of Thu, 7 Jan 88 08:58:52 MST <8801071558.AA29760@orion.utah.edu>
re: I believe that an implementation is not allowed to upgrade all array types
arbitrarily; . . .
Quite right -- since strings and bit-arrays are treated specially in so many
contexts, I frequently forget that are also subtypes of arrays.
re: In other words, I'd like
to see (typep (make-array n :element-type foo) foo) be true in all
implementations, for all types foo.
I'm sure you meant to say:
(typep (make-array n :element-type '<foo>)
Yes, upgrading isn't the only way to optimize the important cases; although
I'd think a vendor would be under some compulsion to reveal just which
element types were "preferable".
-- JonL --