[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
issue COMPILE-ENVIRONMENT-CONSISTENCY, version 4
- To: Aaron Larson <alarson@src.honeywell.com>
- Subject: issue COMPILE-ENVIRONMENT-CONSISTENCY, version 4
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 14:13 EST
- Cc: cl-compiler@sail.stanford.edu, x3j13@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: <8903160338.AA16529@pavo.src.honeywell.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 89 21:38:06 CST
From: alarson@src.honeywell.com (Aaron Larson)
If we permit the compiler to signal warnings for functions where the
compile-time environment signature is different from the function call
being compiled, why do we prohibit it for generic functions?
I would say that what CLOS-MACRO-COMPILATION (which I have not reviewed yet)
is clearly incorrect. Perhaps CLOS-MACRO-COMPILATION was trying only to rule
out signalling an error for a lack of lambda-list congruency between
compile-time and run-time, but went overboard and ruled out warnings
as well. I think warnings in this circumstance can be desirable, but
errors are certainly wrong.