17:52:22atlanHi, I'm having trouble with quickload trying to find something from sbcl 1.4.1 when I've got 1.4.2 locally. Could I tell it to look in a different dir? I'm running brewed sbcl on macos sierra
22:23:54earl-ducaineLispologists! q: getting an SBCL warning that I'm using an obsolete form of do when I try and compile the following: (defun my-do-old () (do ((alfa 0.0)) () (return (list alfa))))
22:24:17earl-ducaineI'm guessing that that's the old way of writing: (defun my-do-ansi () (do ((alfa 0.0)) (nil) (return (list alfa))))
22:25:16earl-ducainei.e. exit condition for 'do forever' used to be just the empty list now the exit clause must have the condition to be checked, even if it's constant.
22:25:32earl-ducaineCan anyone confirm that is in fact the old behavior?
22:25:50earl-ducaine(mucking about with some ancient code)
22:31:45phoeearl-ducaine: I think so, yes. I think the return condition must be explicitly stated, even if it's always NIL.
22:32:28phoe;; Though that function could be obviously optimized to (defun my-do-old () (list 0.0)) - but I don't think that's what your question is about.
22:33:43borodustXach: not that you had any doubt but that indeed works ;p
22:34:00borodusti've updated dist with more precise "versions"
22:36:28Bikeducaine is asking about how do worked before CL, i think.
22:37:58phoeBike: In this case, I have no idea. It could perhaps be possible to study CLtL1 and earlier Lisp manuals.
22:38:28earl-ducaineThanks phoe just too lazy to qualify my example as being for illustritave purposes only! Bike: yes that's correct.
22:38:35earl-ducaineJust refered back to the Chinual and it seems even in Zeta Lisp (nil) was normative for 'do forever'