5 ms·
That is theoretically true, but what implementation really does that with SAFETY being 3? Claiming that SBCL following the standard is poisoning anything is com
by stassats 8y ago
That is theoretically true, but what implementation really does that with SAFETY being 3?
Claiming that SBCL following the standard is poisoning anything is completely baseless, though.
- kbp 8y ago> what implementation really does that with SAFETY being 3? LispWorks: CL-USER 1 > (declaim (optimize safety)) NIL CL-USER 2 > (defun f (x) (declare (fixnum x)) x) F CL-USER 3 > (f "foo") "foo"
- stassats 8y agoIt needs (optimize safety debug) and the function needs to be compiled (interpreted code doesn't perform any optimizations based on the types).
- kbp 8y agoSure, but the point is that that exact same code will throw a type error in SBCL. It at least complicates what you need to do before you can say "what implementation doesn't behave like that?".
- stassats 8y agoBut what is the point, really? SBCL will disable type checks with safety=0, LW will enable with safety=3, debug=3. Is the point "read your documentation before relying on things"? Or is the OP's point that SBCL shouldn't exist because it's "poisoning" and "a bad thing"? That's the problem with such FUD, can't ignore it or somebody might actually believe it, can't just say "nonsense" since that's not convincing.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]