[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO (version 3)
- To: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: Issue: SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO (version 3)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Sat, 12 Mar 88 20:02 EST
- In-reply-to: <880214-134110-1441@Xerox>
I support many ideas of this proposal, but I have two gripes which make me
have to oppose it:
* I can't deal with the idea of generalizing SYMBOL-FUNCTION. I would like
to see FDEFINITION introduced and SYMBOL-FUNCTION left alone.
* I'm also a little leary about TRACE being extended this way because
(TRACE (a list)) might later want to be interpreted as options rather
than as a function spec and I'd rather not have to risk heuristic resolution.
I would rather someone right now introduce a generalized syntax for TRACE
with syntactic space for trace options, such as
(TRACE (fn . options) (fn . options) (fn . options))
and then allow the generalized (non-symbol) fn to only occur within that
syntax so that no ambiguity results.