;; information around, I'm not sure. -- WHN 2000-12-30
%variable-rebinding))
-;;; comment from CMU CL PCL:
-;;; These are age-old functions which CommonLisp cleaned-up away. They
-;;; probably exist in other packages in all CommonLisp
-;;; implementations, but I will leave it to the compiler to optimize
-;;; into calls to them.
-;;;
-;;; FIXME: MEMQ, ASSQ, and DELQ are already defined in SBCL, and we
-;;; should use those definitions. POSQ and NEQ aren't defined in SBCL,
-;;; and are used too often in PCL to make it appealing to hand expand
-;;; all uses and then delete the macros, so they should be boosted up
-;;; to SB-INT to stand by MEMQ, ASSQ, and DELQ.
-(defmacro memq (item list) `(member ,item ,list :test #'eq))
-(defmacro assq (item list) `(assoc ,item ,list :test #'eq))
-(defmacro delq (item list) `(delete ,item ,list :test #'eq))
-(defmacro posq (item list) `(position ,item ,list :test #'eq))
-(defmacro neq (x y) `(not (eq ,x ,y)))
-;;; FIXME: CONSTANTLY-FOO should be boosted up to SB-INT too.
-(macrolet ((def-constantly-fun (name constant-expr)
- `(setf (symbol-function ',name)
- (constantly ,constant-expr))))
- (def-constantly-fun constantly-t t)
- (def-constantly-fun constantly-nil nil)
- (def-constantly-fun constantly-0 0))
-
-;;; comment from original CMU CL PCL: ONCE-ONLY does the same thing as
-;;; it does in zetalisp. I should have just lifted it from there but I
-;;; am honest. Not only that but this one is written in Common Lisp. I
-;;; feel a lot like bootstrapping, or maybe more like rebuilding Rome.
-;;;
-;;; FIXME: We should only need one ONCE-ONLY in SBCL, and there's one
-;;; in SB-INT already. Can we use only one of these in both places?
-(defmacro once-only (vars &body body)
- (let ((gensym-var (gensym))
- (run-time-vars (gensym))
- (run-time-vals (gensym))
- (expand-time-val-forms ()))
- (dolist (var vars)
- (push `(if (or (symbolp ,var)
- (numberp ,var)
- (and (listp ,var)
- (member (car ,var) '(quote function))))
- ,var
- (let ((,gensym-var (gensym)))
- (push ,gensym-var ,run-time-vars)
- (push ,var ,run-time-vals)
- ,gensym-var))
- expand-time-val-forms))
- `(let* (,run-time-vars
- ,run-time-vals
- (wrapped-body
- (let ,(mapcar #'list vars (reverse expand-time-val-forms))
- ,@body)))
- `(let ,(mapcar #'list (reverse ,run-time-vars)
- (reverse ,run-time-vals))
- ,wrapped-body))))
-
;;; FIXME: This looks like SBCL's PARSE-BODY, and should be shared.
(eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute)
(defun extract-declarations (body &optional environment)
(loop (cond ((not (listp form))
(return-from outer nil))
((eq (car form) 'declare)
- (return-from inner 't))
+ (return-from inner t))
(t
(multiple-value-bind (newform macrop)
(macroexpand-1 form environment)
(find-class-from-cell ',symbol ,class-cell nil))))))
form))
-;;; FIXME: These #-SETF forms are pretty ugly. Could they please go away?
-#-setf
-(defsetf find-class (symbol &optional (errorp t) environment) (new-value)
- (declare (ignore errorp environment))
- `(SETF\ SB-PCL\ FIND-CLASS ,new-value ,symbol))
-
-(defun #-setf SETF\ SB-PCL\ FIND-CLASS #+setf (setf find-class) (new-value
- symbol)
+(defun (setf find-class) (new-value symbol)
(if (legal-class-name-p symbol)
(let ((cell (find-class-cell symbol)))
(setf (find-class-cell-class cell) new-value)
(eq *boot-state* 'braid))
(when (and new-value (class-wrapper new-value))
(setf (find-class-cell-predicate cell)
- (symbol-function (class-predicate-name new-value))))
+ (fdefinition (class-predicate-name new-value))))
(when (and new-value (not (forward-referenced-class-p new-value)))
- (dolist (keys+aok (find-class-cell-make-instance-function-keys cell))
+ (dolist (keys+aok (find-class-cell-make-instance-function-keys
+ cell))
(update-initialize-info-internal
(initialize-info new-value (car keys+aok) nil (cdr keys+aok))
'make-instance-function))))
new-value)
(error "~S is not a legal class name." symbol)))
-#-setf
-(defsetf find-class-predicate (symbol &optional (errorp t) environment) (new-value)
- (declare (ignore errorp environment))
- `(SETF\ SB-PCL\ FIND-CLASS-PREDICATE ,new-value ,symbol))
-
-(defun #-setf SETF\ SB-PCL\ FIND-CLASS-PREDICATE
- #+setf (setf find-class-predicate)
- (new-value symbol)
+(defun (setf find-class-predicate)
+ (new-value symbol)
(if (legal-class-name-p symbol)
- (setf (find-class-cell-predicate (find-class-cell symbol)) new-value)
- (error "~S is not a legal class name." symbol)))
+ (setf (find-class-cell-predicate (find-class-cell symbol)) new-value)
+ (error "~S is not a legal class name." symbol)))
(defun find-wrapper (symbol)
(class-wrapper (find-class symbol)))
value)))
#'(lambda () result))))
-;;; These are augmented definitions of list-elements and list-tails from
-;;; iterate.lisp. These versions provide the extra :by keyword which can
+;;; These are augmented definitions of LIST-ELEMENTS and LIST-TAILS from
+;;; iterate.lisp. These versions provide the extra :BY keyword which can
;;; be used to specify the step function through the list.
(defmacro *list-elements (list &key (by #'cdr))
`(let ((tail ,list))
(defmacro function-apply (form &rest args)
`(apply (the function ,form) ,@args))
\f
-;;;; various nastiness to work around nonstandardness of SETF when PCL
-;;;; was written
-
-;;; Convert a function name to its standard SETF function name. We
-;;; have to do this hack because not all Common Lisps have yet
-;;; converted to having SETF function specs.
-;;;
-;;; KLUDGE: We probably don't have to do this any more. But in Debian
-;;; cmucl 2.4.8 the :SETF feature isn't set (?). Perhaps it's because of
-;;; the comment ca. 10 lines down about how the built-in setf mechanism
-;;; takes a hash table lookup each time? It would be nice to go one
-;;; way or another on this, perhaps some benchmarking would be in order..
-;;; (Oh, more info: In debian src/pcl/notes.text, which looks like stale
-;;; documentation from 1992, it says TO DO: When CMU CL improves its
-;;; SETF handling, remove the comment in macros.lisp beginning the line
-;;; #+CMU (PUSHNEW :SETF *FEATURES*). So since CMU CL's (and now SBCL's)
-;;; SETF handling seems OK to me these days, there's a fairly decent chance
-;;; this would work.) -- WHN 19991203
-;;;
-;;; In a port that does have SETF function specs you can use those just by
-;;; making the obvious simple changes to these functions. The rest of PCL
-;;; believes that there are function names like (SETF <foo>), this is the
-;;; only place that knows about this hack.
-(eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute)
-; In 15e (and also 16c), using the built-in SETF mechanism costs
-; a hash table lookup every time a SETF function is called.
-; Uncomment the next line to use the built in SETF mechanism.
-;#+cmu (pushnew :setf *features*)
-) ; EVAL-WHEN
-(eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute)
-
-#-setf
-(defvar *setf-function-names* (make-hash-table :size 200 :test 'eq))
-
-(defun get-setf-function-name (name)
- #+setf `(setf ,name)
- #-setf
- (or (gethash name *setf-function-names*)
- (setf (gethash name *setf-function-names*)
- (let ((pkg (symbol-package name)))
- (if pkg
- (intern (format nil
- "SETF ~A ~A"
- (package-name pkg)
- (symbol-name name))
- *pcl-package*)
- (make-symbol (format nil "SETF ~A" (symbol-name name))))))))
-
-;;; Call this to define a setf macro for a function with the same behavior as
-;;; specified by the SETF function cleanup proposal. Specifically, this will
-;;; cause: (SETF (FOO a b) x) to expand to (|SETF FOO| x a b).
-;;;
-;;; do-standard-defsetf A macro interface for use at top level
-;;; in files. Unfortunately, users may
-;;; have to use this for a while.
-;;;
-;;; do-standard-defsetfs-for-defclass A special version called by defclass.
-;;;
-;;; do-standard-defsetf-1 A functional interface called by the
-;;; above, defmethod and defgeneric.
-;;; Since this is all a crock anyways,
-;;; users are free to call this as well.
-;;;
-;;; FIXME: Once we fix up SETF, a lot of stuff around here should evaporate.
-(defmacro do-standard-defsetf (&rest function-names)
- `(eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute)
- (dolist (fn-name ',function-names) (do-standard-defsetf-1 fn-name))))
-
-(defun do-standard-defsetfs-for-defclass (accessors)
- (dolist (name accessors) (do-standard-defsetf-1 name)))
-
-(defun do-standard-defsetf-1 (function-name)
- #+setf
- (declare (ignore function-name))
- #+setf nil
- #-setf
- (unless (and (setfboundp function-name)
- (get function-name 'standard-setf))
- (setf (get function-name 'standard-setf) t)
- (let* ((setf-function-name (get-setf-function-name function-name)))
- (eval `(defsetf ,function-name (&rest accessor-args) (new-value)
- (let* ((bindings (mapcar #'(lambda (x) `(,(gensym) ,x)) accessor-args))
- (vars (mapcar #'car bindings)))
- `(let ,bindings
- (,',setf-function-name ,new-value ,@vars))))))))
-
-(defun setfboundp (symbol)
- (fboundp `(setf ,symbol)))
-
-) ; EVAL-WHEN
-
-;;; PCL, like user code, must endure the fact that we don't have a
-;;; properly working SETF. Many things work because they get mentioned
-;;; by a DEFCLASS or DEFMETHOD before they are used, but others have
-;;; to be done by hand.
-;;;
-;;; FIXME: We don't have to do this stuff any more, do we?
-(do-standard-defsetf
- class-wrapper ;***
- generic-function-name
- method-function-plist
- method-function-get
- plist-value
- object-plist
- gdefinition
- slot-value-using-class)
+(defun get-setf-fun-name (name)
+ `(setf ,name))
(defsetf slot-value set-slot-value)
projects / sbcl.git / blobdiff