Re: issue QUOTE-SEMANTICS, version 2

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

> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 89 19:48 EST
> From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
> 
> I can't support either of the other two proposals because they use
> the words "copying" and "coalescing" without defining their meaning.

"Copying" means making an equivalent object that is similar as a
constant, but not necessarily EQL, to the original. 

I now have a question of my own about how proposal 
COPYING-ALLOWED-BUT-NO-CONSTRAINTS interacts with issue
CONSTANT-COMPILABLE-TYPES.  Maybe somebody who supports this 
issue can help clarify this.

On types where the notion of "similar as a constant" is left
unspecified (for example, readtables), do you want this proposal to
mean that copying is entirely forbidden, or that if the implementation
has defined some behavior for "similar as a constant" on that type,
that it can go ahead and copy?

If copying is entirely forbidden in such a case, the implementation 
cost for this proposal will be just as high as for proposal NO-COPYING.

-Sandra
-------