Re: issue COMPILED-FUNCTION-REQUIREMENTS, version 4

[sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu (Sandra J Loosemore)]

> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 13:42:07 EST
> From: Dan L. Pierson <pierson@mist.encore.com>
> 
> One of Kent's points in earlier discussion was that it should (read
> MUST) be safe to blindly apply to COMPILE to any symbol with a
> function definition.  I thought there was general agreement on this.
> If the lastest draft contradicts this then it needs to be fixed.

The current wording (from proposal COMPILE-ARGUMENT-PROBLEMS) says
"it is an error".  My recollection is that we agreed to an editorial
change to "the consequences are unspecified", assuming the error
terminology ever gets sorted out.

Now that I think about the interaction between the two proposals, it
does seem like there is a problem -- we can't require a
COMPILED-FUNCTION to be returned and leave the behavior unspecified at
the same time.  I think we need to do one of two things:

(1) Require COMPILE to signal an error if it can't return a 
    COMPILED-FUNCTION.

(2) Say that COMPILE is required to return a COMPILED-FUNCTION only
    in the situations that are not unspecified.

Any further thoughts on this?  My personal leanings are towards
signalling an error.

-Sandra
-------