maxima/sloop patch: modularity bug [supersedes the previous]
Subject: maxima/sloop patch: modularity bug [supersedes the previous]
From: Sam Steingold
Date: 07 Oct 2002 10:14:19 -0400
Actually, loop-finish should be renamed to sloop-finish, but this would
require modifying other files too.
2002-10-07 Sam Steingold <sds@gnu.org>
* sloop.lisp (loop-finish): shadow the CL loop-finish (yuk!)
(FIRST-SLOOP-FOR): avoid a warning by explicitly
declaring *loop-increment* special
(type-error): renamed to `sloop-type-error' (type-error is a
standard CL symbol and should not be used here)
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running RedHat7.3 GNU/Linux
<http://www.camera.org>; <http://www.iris.org.il>; <http://www.memri.org/>;
<http://www.mideasttruth.com/>; <http://www.palestine-central.com/links.html>;
Daddy, what does "format disk c: complete" mean?
--- sloop.lisp.~1.2.~ Fri Feb 23 21:21:59 2001
+++ sloop.lisp Mon Oct 7 10:11:46 2002
@@ -72,9 +72,8 @@
(in-package "SLOOP")
;(or (find-package "SLOOP") (make-package "SLOOP" :use '(LISP)))
-;(eval-when (compile eval load)
-;(shadow '(LOOP-FINISH) (find-package "SLOOP"))
-;)
+(eval-when (compile eval load)
+ (shadow '(LOOP-FINISH) (find-package "SLOOP")))
;(in-package "SLOOP" )
;
;(eval-when (compile eval load)
@@ -592,7 +591,7 @@
(cond (type (list 'the type symbol ))
(t symbol)))
-(defun type-error ()
+(defun sloop-type-error ()
(error "While checking a bound of a sloop, I found the wrong type
for something in sloop::*automatic-declarations*.
Perhaps your limit is wrong?
@@ -640,7 +639,7 @@
'the-value *type-test-limit*)
(or chk value))
',type)
- (type-error))
+ (sloop-type-error))
,(or chk value)))))))
(t (list value))))
@@ -836,7 +835,7 @@
(or inc 1))))
(t `(> ,var ,(+ most-negative-fixnum
(or inc 1)))))
- (type-error))
+ (sloop-type-error))
*loop-increment*)
)))))
@@ -1140,6 +1139,7 @@
;;; THEN construction.
(def-loop-for first (var expr1 then expr2)
+ (declare (special *loop-increment*))
(or (l-equal then 'then) (error "First must be followed by then"))
;; If this is the first for, then we don't need the flag, but can
;; move the FIRST setting into the INITIALLY section