>>>>> "Ole" == Ole Rohne <ole.rohne@cern.ch> writes:
Ole> Yes, I know I shouldn't fix what is not broken. However, for a
Ole> suitable definition of the b-word, SLOOP *is* broken. I do see the
I think we should get rid of sloop, but not for the 6.0 release.
Maybe the next one?
And a long time ago I ported an ANSI loop from the CMU AI archives to
gcl, so gcl support won't be hurt. (Pretty sure the ansi loop is the
very similar to the one in CMUCL, which we could probably use for gcl
too.)
Ole> lack of regression tests as a strong argument for not doing changes of
Ole> this kind. My SLOOP -> LOOP passes all doc/rtest*.mac but I know
Ole> that's far from full coverage.
That's a problem, but I'm not sure what else we could do except try it
and let users report problems.
Ray