The situation is complicated by the presence of Common Lisp types
like UNSIGNED-BYTE (which can either be used in list form or alone)
so I'm not 100% sure that the behavior above is actually illegal.
- But I'm 90+% sure, and someday perhaps I'll be motivated to look it up..
+ But I'm 90+% sure, and the following related behavior,
+ (TYPEP 11 'AND) => T
+ treating the bare symbol AND as equivalent to '(AND), is specifically
+ forbidden (by the ANSI specification of the AND type).
11:
It would be nice if the
(during macroexpansion of IN-PACKAGE,
during macroexpansion of DEFFOO)
-12:
- The type system doesn't understand the KEYWORD type very well:
- (SUBTYPEP 'KEYWORD 'SYMBOL) => NIL, NIL
- It might be possible to fix this by changing the definition of
- KEYWORD to (AND SYMBOL (SATISFIES KEYWORDP)), but the type system
- would need to be a bit smarter about AND types, too:
- (SUBTYPEP '(AND SYMBOL KEYWORD) 'SYMBOL) => NIL, NIL
- (The type system does know something about AND types already,
- (SUBTYPEP '(AND INTEGER FLOAT) 'NUMBER) => T, T
- (SUBTYPEP '(AND INTEGER FIXNUM) 'NUMBER) =>T, T
- so likely this is a small patch.)
-
13:
Floating point infinities are screwed up. [When I was converting CMU CL
to SBCL, I was looking for complexity to delete, and I thought it was safe
#<Closure Over Function "DEFUN (SETF MACRO-FUNCTION)" {480E21B1}> was defined in a non-null environment.
58:
- (SUBTYPEP '(AND ZILCH INTEGER) 'ZILCH)
- => NIL, NIL
+ (SUBTYPEP '(AND ZILCH INTEGER) 'ZILCH) => NIL, NIL
+ Note: I looked into fixing this in 0.6.11.15, but gave up. The
+ problem seems to be that there are two relevant type methods for
+ the subtypep operation, HAIRY :COMPLEX-SUBTYPEP-ARG2 and
+ INTERSECTION :COMPLEX-SUBTYPEP-ARG1, and only the first is
+ called. This could be fixed, but type dispatch is messy and
+ confusing enough already, I don't want to complicate it further.
+ Perhaps someday we can make CLOS cross-compiled (instead of compiled
+ after bootstrapping) so that we don't need to have the type system
+ available before CLOS, and then we can rewrite the type methods to
+ CLOS methods, and then expressing the solutions to stuff like this
+ should become much more straightforward. -- WHN 2001-03-14
59:
CL:*DEFAULT-PATHNAME-DEFAULTS* doesn't behave as ANSI suggests (reflecting
them as methods, and identified their generic functions and
specializers.
+83:
+ RANDOM-INTEGER-EXTRA-BITS=10 may not be large enough for the RANDOM
+ RNG to be high quality near RANDOM-FIXNUM-MAX; it looks as though
+ the mean of the distribution can be systematically O(0.1%) wrong.
+ Just increasing R-I-E-B is probably not a good solution, since
+ it would decrease efficiency more than is probably necessary. Perhaps
+ using some sort of accept/reject method would be better.
+
+84:
+ (SUBTYPEP '(SATISFIES SOME-UNDEFINED-FUN) NIL)=>NIL,T (should be NIL,NIL)
+
+85:
+ Internally the compiler sometimes evaluates
+ (sb-kernel:type/= (specifier-type '*) (specifier-type t))
+ (I stumbled across this when I added an
+ (assert (not (eq type1 *wild-type*)))
+ in the NAMED :SIMPLE-= type method.) '* isn't really a type, and
+ in a type context should probably be translated to T, and so it's
+ probably to ask whether it's equal to the T type and then (using the
+ EQ type comparison in the NAMED :SIMPLE-= type method) return NIL.
+ (I haven't tried to investigate this bug enough to guess whether
+ there might be any user-level symptoms.)
+
+87:
+ Despite what the manual says, (DECLAIM (SPEED 0)) doesn't cause
+ things to be byte compiled. This seems to be true in cmucl-2.4.19,
+ too: (COMPILE-FILE .. :BYTE-COMPILE T) causes byte-compilation,
+ but ordinary COMPILE-FILE of a file containing (DECLAIM (SPEED 0))
+ does not.
+
KNOWN BUGS RELATED TO THE IR1 INTERPRETER
projects / sbcl.git / blobdiff