[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issues: LET-TOP-LEVEL (version 1) vs DEFMACRO-BODY-LEXICAL-ENVIRONMENT
- To: Dan L. Pierson <pierson%mist@MULTIMAX.ARPA>
- Subject: Re: Issues: LET-TOP-LEVEL (version 1) vs DEFMACRO-BODY-LEXICAL-ENVIRONMENT
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Fri, 11 Mar 88 13:21 EST
- Cc: cl-cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: <8803092049.AA09416@mist.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 88 15:49:01 EST
From: Dan L. Pierson <pierson@mist>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 88 15:41 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
If this proposal were presented in its current form, I would oppose it.
No amount of wording changes would change my position. I want to see
a broader proposal.
Does this mean that you would oppose anything that didn't include a
fixed definition of "top level"?
I'm not sure. It may be that a broader proposal that was more explicit about
its scope could still avoid precisely defining "top level", however it does
not seem likely. I suppose that means the answer is a conditional yes.
If so, do you think that such a fix
is a required part of the standard we're working on or that
standardizing the status quo is preferable to any halfway measures?
I don't see how we could standardize the status quo, since nobody seems to
be able to figure out what the status quo is. I'm not sure what "required"
means in practice. I suspect a successful standard could continue to
duck the issue of the meaning of "top level"; after all, ducking that
issue hasn't killed the de facto Common Lisp standard. Obviously, though,
it would be better to tackle the issue. I would have hoped that the
compiler committee would have solved this issue six months ago, but
unfortunately that committee doesn't seem to do much.