Re: CONSTANT-COMPILABLE-TYPES:SPECIFY, V4

[Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>]

> I have only two minor complaints with the content of the proposal.
> The first is that dumping a constant readtable is unlikely to be very
> useful in an implementation that cannot dump compiled function
> constants.  The second is that I'm still not convinced that requiring
> non-compiled, non-closed function constants to be dumpable buys
> anything for the user, since an implementation is always free to make
> all functions compiled.  Rather than modify the proposal, at this point
> I'd be happy with just adding a note to the discussion section.

Although I didn't say anything about it before, I was always bothered
by the idea that functions would be dumped in readtables.  Since it's
pretty clear that not all implementations can dump all functions, users
can't rely on it at all; and then the whole idea of dumping a readtable
begins to seem suspect.

Can readtable functions be symbols?

BTW, isn't function equivalence already covered by CLtL?

Cheers,
Jeff