[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: issue CONSTANT-FUNCTION-COMPILATION
- To: cperdue@Sun.COM, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: issue CONSTANT-FUNCTION-COMPILATION
- From: cperdue@Sun.COM (Cris Perdue)
- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 10:47:53 PST
- Cc: email@example.com
> The current language from issue CONSTANT-COMPILABLE-TYPES says that
> two (non-compiled, non-closed) functions are similar as constants if
> their SOURCE-LAMBDA-EXPRESSIONs are similar as constants. I assume
> this was a typo for FUNCTION-LAMBDA-EXPRESSIONs,
> except that
> FUNCTION-LAMBDA-EXPRESSION is always permitted to return NIL if it
> can't figure out what the original source code looked like.
So both must be non-NIL.
> feeling is that this definition of "similar as constants" is
> unacceptable because of this.
Yes, please fix.
As long as the langauge of the current proposal can be fixed,
I would prefer to fix it. If we wish to split off an issue
on compiling constant functions, it would be appropriate for
that to amend CONSTANT-COMPILABLE-TYPES. Likewise it is very
easy to amend the current proposal to remove support for constant
functions. Their status would become like the status of streams,
where an implementation may choose to support function constants,
but is not required to do so.