15:41:15dlowewell, if n packages declared m local nicknames, it would contain n x m symbols
15:41:17phoeADD-PACKAGE-LOCAL-NICKNAME, REMOVE-PACKAGE-LOCAL-NICKNAME, PACKAGE-LOCAL-NICKNAMES and PACKAGE-LOCALLY-NICKNAMED-BY-LIST were copied from SBCL and adapted to CCL's package system.
15:41:27phoedlowe: yes, and now you delete these n packages
15:41:36phoedo you unintern the names from the package?
15:41:45phoeif yes, how do you check if it can be deleted?
15:58:09phoeFor now - if anyone is able to follow the bootstrapping steps I have written, please do it
15:58:15phoeI want to be sure that it builds for anyone else than me
17:34:22beachDoes it make sense to supply an IGNORE or IGNORABLE declaration for a special variable or a global function?
17:36:50makomobeach: i think i've seen cl-ppcre use a special variable in one function's lambda-list, with a comment saying that that indeed dynamically binds the variable
17:36:59makomoso in that context, perhaps it might make sense?
17:38:21makomobut since i've never tried that technique (i.e. have no proof that it works), maybe my recollection is wrong
17:38:29verisimilitudeI'd rather declare something such as IGNORABLE where it's actually IGNORABLE and not globally, beach.
17:38:43makomobut intuitively, i would expect it to work
17:39:42Bike"When not within the scope of a ignore or ignorable declaration, it is desirable for a compiler to issue a warning about any var for which there is neither a for-value reference nor a special declaration, or about any fn for which there is no for-value reference." oh huh
17:40:15Bikeapparently you can have free ignore/able declarations, though. weird
17:50:35beachmakomo: Since a binding of a special variable can affect the meaning of code outside the scope of the form that introduced the binding, it doesn't make much sense to declare it ignore in that form.
17:50:51beachAnyway, time to go fix dinner for my (admittedly small) family.
17:50:57makomoand SBCL does warn about that case as well
17:51:19pjbbeach: it depends. À-priori, a ignore or ignorable declaration on a special variable would not be useful, since it's assumed the variable might be used by the called functions. But if the called functions don't use it, it might be meaningful to declare a special variable ignorable or ignore. But in this case we should get a warning that we made a useless binding!
17:51:45pjbbeach: therefore I would say that ignore or ignorable on special variable is not sensical.
17:52:48pjbSimilarly, in absence of a tree-shaker, global functions may be used eventually. Declaring it ignore, would mean that we can just forget it because it won't be used ever. So why did we define it?
17:53:24makomopjb: but there's no 100% way to check whether a function uses a dynamic variable or not, right?
17:53:32makomothe function could use all sorts of runtime tricks
17:53:51pjbmakomo: define use. We can check if the function uses it directly, not if it uses it thru one of the function called.
17:54:13pjbmakomo: also, most functions called by a function can be redefined at run-time, so we cannot be sure at compilation time of anything.
17:54:16makomooh i see, i misread your first sentence, woops
18:43:43phoeshka_: CHECK-TYPEs added to CCL in 50135c8
20:08:41iovechey, in quicklisp i see that i can clone the thing in ~/quicklisp/local-projcets and then quickload works, but it doesn't download it on its own when I do that directly, how can I know what's wrong
22:08:49shka_you can find position from end, then you should handle 3 cases, if position is null, return empty sequence, if it is zero return original sequence, if it is non-zero use subesquence