Re: issue COMPILE-FILE-HANDLING-OF-TOP-LEVEL-FORMS

[Rob.MacLachlan@WB1.CS.CMU.EDU]

    From: sandra@cs.utah.edu (Sandra J Loosemore)
    Date: Fri, 20 May 88 14:03:55 MDT
    Subject: Re: issue COMPILE-FILE-HANDLING-OF-TOP-LEVEL-FORMS 
    To: Rob.MacLachlan@wb1.cs.cmu.edu
    > Date: Fri, 20 May 88 15:09:45 EDT
    > From: Rob.MacLachlan@WB1.CS.CMU.EDU
    > 
    > Like Jonl, I favor saying that forms like DEFMACRO are actually truly,
    > honest to God evaluated by the compiler.
    [...] These two paragraphs seem mutually contradictory.

Well, not in my intent.  I don't include DEFUN in "forms like DEFMACRO".
The "forms like DEFMACRO" are:
    defmacro
    deftype
    defstruct
    define-setf-method
    defsetf
    defconstant

As a codification of current practice, the proposal is fine, but it doesn't
go nearly as far in specification as a good language design should.
Vagueness in specification is a powerful tool, but you shouldn't be vague
for no good reason.  The main reason that current practice is so diverse is
that this stuff was never standardized on, and for most programs *it
doesn't matter* as long as it falls within the general range you outline.
The problem with not being definite is that it encourages non-portability,
since the few programs that do care will work differently on different
implementations.

Having said that, I point out that I have no objection to this proposal
other than that it doesn't require the DEFCONSTANT value form to be
compile-time evaluable.  In all other ways it is compatible with my
compiler cleanup proposal, since its definition is so inclusive.

  Rob