0.9.3.9:

	Fix PFD "Setting + in the REPL when the form being evaluated aborts"
	sbcl-devel 2004-12-12
	... PFD's interpretation is both the most obvious and the most
		useful (if three history variables is "useful"), but not
		widely subscribed to.  Let's see if SBCL can act as social
		pressure!
	(Also largely cosmetic updates to package-lock documentation)

diff --git a/doc/manual/package-locks-extended.texinfo b/doc/manual/package-locks-extended.texinfo
index 60f32fb..8cb8a74 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/manual/package-locks-extended.texinfo
+++ b/doc/manual/package-locks-extended.texinfo
@@ -7,9 +7,10 @@ None of the following sections apply to SBCL built without package
 locksing support.
 
 The interface described here is experimental: incompatible changes in
-future SBCL releases are possible, even expected: most notably the
-consept of implementation packages and the associated operators may be
-renamed.
+future SBCL releases are possible, even expected: the concept of
+``implementation packages'' and the associated operators may be renamed;
+more operations (such as naming restarts or catch tags) may be added to
+the the list of operations violating package locks.
 
 @menu
 * Package Lock Concepts::       
@@ -31,10 +32,10 @@ renamed.
 @comment  node-name,  next,  previous,  up
 @subsection Package Locking Overview
 
-Package locks protect against unintentional modifications of a
-package: they provide similar protection to user packages as is
-mandated to @code{common-lisp} package by the ANSI specification. They
-are not, and should not be used as a security measure.
+Package locks protect against unintentional modifications of a package:
+they provide similar protection to user packages as is mandated to
+@code{common-lisp} package by the ANSI specification. They are not, and
+should not be used as, a security measure.
 
 Newly created packages are by default unlocked (see the @code{:lock}
 option to @code{defpackage}).
@@ -48,6 +49,8 @@ but this is not currently done by default.
 
 @node Implementation Packages
 @subsection Implementation Packages
+@vindex *package*
+@findex defpackage
 
 Each package has a list of associated implementation packages. A
 locked package, and the symbols whose home package it is, can be
@@ -61,6 +64,13 @@ Unless explicitly altered by @code{defpackage},
 
 @node Package Lock Violations
 @subsection Package Lock Violations
+@tindex sb-ext:package-lock-violation
+@tindex sb-ext:package-locked-error
+@tindex sb-ext:symbol-package-locked-error
+@tindex package-lock-violation
+@tindex package-locked-error
+@tindex symbol-package-locked-error
+@tindex package-error
 
 If an operation violates a package lock, a continuable error that is
 of a subtype of @code{sb-ext:package-lock-violation} (subtype of
@@ -78,6 +88,18 @@ errors of type @code{sb-ext:symbol-package-locked-error}.
 @subsection Package Locks in Compiled Code
 
 @subsubsection Lexical bindings and declarations
+@findex let
+@findex let*
+@findex flet
+@findex labels
+@findex macrolet
+@findex symbol-macrolet
+@findex declare
+@cindex Declarations
+@findex sb-ext:disable-package-locks
+@findex sb-ext:enable-package-locks
+@findex disable-package-locks
+@findex enable-package-locks
 
 Compiling lexical binding constructs or lexical declarations that
 violate package locks causes a compile-time package-lock violation. A
@@ -107,9 +129,9 @@ Example:
 
 @subsubsection Interned symbols
 
-If compiled code contains interned symbols, then loading that code
+If file-compiled code contains interned symbols, then loading that code
 into an image without the said symbols will not cause a package lock
-violation even if the packages in question are locked.
+violation, even if the packages in question are locked.
 
 @subsubsection Other limitations on compiled code
 
@@ -123,7 +145,7 @@ runtime, and code compiled with packages locked may or may not signal
 spurious package-lock-violations at runtime even if the packages are
 unlocked.
 
-In practise all this means that package-locks have a neglible
+In practice all this means that package-locks have a neglible
 performance penalty in compiled code as long as they are not violated.
 
 @node Operations Violating Package Locks
@@ -131,12 +153,12 @@ performance penalty in compiled code as long as they are not violated.
 
 @subsubsection Operations on Packages
 
-Following actions cause a package lock violation if the package
+The following actions cause a package lock violation if the package
 operated on is locked, and @code{*package*} is not an implementation
 package of that package, and the action would cause a change in the
-state of the package (eg. exporting already external symbols is
-allowed). Package lock violations caused by these operations signal
-errors of type @code{sb-ext:package-locked-error}.
+state of the package (so e.g. exporting already external symbols is
+never a violation). Package lock violations caused by these operations
+signal errors of type @code{sb-ext:package-locked-error}.
 
 @enumerate
 @item
@@ -179,10 +201,10 @@ apparent violated package.
 Example:
 
 @lisp
-;; Packages FOO and BAR are locked.
-;;
-;; Two lexically apparent violated packages: exactly two
-;; package-locked-errors will be signalled.
+;;; Packages FOO and BAR are locked.
+;;;
+;;; Two lexically apparent violated packages: exactly two
+;;; package-locked-errors will be signalled.
 
 (defclass foo:point ()
   ((x :accessor bar:x)
@@ -285,17 +307,17 @@ has no effect.
 
 Syntax: @code{(sb-ext:enable-package-locks symbol*)}
 
-Re-enables package locks affecting the named symbols during
-compilation in the lexical scope of the declaration. Enabling locks
-that were not first disabled with @code{sb-ext:disable-package-locks}
-declararion, or enabling locks that are already enabled has no effect.
+Re-enables package locks affecting the named symbols during compilation
+in the lexical scope of the declaration. Enabling locks that were not
+first disabled with @code{sb-ext:disable-package-locks} declararion, or
+enabling locks that are already enabled has no effect.
 @end deftp
 
 @include condition-sb-ext-package-lock-violation.texinfo
 @include condition-sb-ext-package-locked-error.texinfo
 @include condition-sb-ext-symbol-package-locked-error.texinfo
 
-@defun sb-ext:package-locked-error-symbol @var{symbol-package-locked-error}
+@defun sb-ext:package-locked-error-symbol symbol-package-locked-error
 
 Returns the symbol that caused the @code{symbol-package-locked-error}
 condition.
@@ -311,7 +333,7 @@ condition.
 @include macro-sb-ext-without-package-locks.texinfo
 @include macro-sb-ext-with-unlocked-packages.texinfo
 
-@defmac defpackage name [[@var{option}]]* @result{} package
+@defmac defpackage name [[option]]* @result{} package
 
 Options are extended to include the following:
 

diff --git a/src/code/toplevel.lisp b/src/code/toplevel.lisp
index f77abc1..2dae8cb 100644 (file)
--- a/src/code/toplevel.lisp
+++ b/src/code/toplevel.lisp
@@ -271,16 +271,17 @@ steppers to maintain contextual information.")
   "Evaluate FORM, returning whatever it returns and adjusting ***, **, *,
    +++, ++, +, ///, //, /, and -."
   (setf - form)
-  (let ((results (multiple-value-list (eval form))))
-    (setf /// //
-          // /
-          / results
-          *** **
-          ** *
-          * (car results)))
-  (setf +++ ++
-        ++ +
-        + -)
+  (unwind-protect
+       (let ((results (multiple-value-list (eval form))))
+         (setf /// //
+               // /
+               / results
+               *** **
+               ** *
+               * (car results)))
+    (setf +++ ++
+          ++ +
+          + -))
   (unless (boundp '*)
     ;; The bogon returned an unbound marker.
     ;; FIXME: It would be safer to check every one of the values in RESULTS,

diff --git a/version.lisp-expr b/version.lisp-expr
index dee08cc..893991d 100644 (file)
--- a/version.lisp-expr
+++ b/version.lisp-expr
@@ -17,4 +17,4 @@
 ;;; checkins which aren't released. (And occasionally for internal
 ;;; versions, especially for internal versions off the main CVS
 ;;; branch, it gets hairier, e.g. "0.pre7.14.flaky4.13".)
-"0.9.3.8"
+"0.9.3.9"