[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: LET-TOP-LEVEL (version 1)
- To: Jon L White <edsel!jonl%labrea.Stanford.EDU@Multimax>
- Subject: Re: Issue: LET-TOP-LEVEL (version 1)
- From: Dan L. Pierson <pierson@mist>
- Date: Thu, 03 Mar 88 11:26:21 EST
- Cc: cl-cleanup%sail.Stanford.EDU@Multimax
- In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 02 Mar 88 15:41:45 -0800. <8803022341.AA10857@bhopal.lucid.com>
re: ... so that anything said about "anonymous lambdas" should also
be equally applicable to "defun"'s.
The relevant sentence is on page 67: "Other implementation-dependent
bookkeeping actions may be taken as well by DEFUN."
I don't believe that the sentence about "Other
implementation-dependent ..." negates the understanding of DEFUN
as basically a rewrite to
(setf (symbol-function 'foo) #'(lambda (x y ...) ...))
If anything needs "clarifying" around this topic, perhaps it
should be just that. In particular, the sorts of things I imagine
would legitimately fall into "Other implementation-dependent ..."
are items like hooks for cross-referencing programs, file-indexing
programs, extensions the normal error-signalling upon redefinition
(to facilitate "patch" files etc).
I have no argument about "the essence of DEFUN", my point was that the
potential existence of this sort of bookkeeping activity prevents me
simply defining my own macro which expands to SETF of SYMBOL-FUNCTION
and using it instead of DEFUN. A couple of people seriously proposed
that alternative in the common-lisp discussion on this topic last