[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Compilation implications
- To: Jon L White <jonl@lucid.com>
- Subject: Re: Compilation implications
- From: kempf@Sun.COM
- Date: Tue, 03 Jan 89 09:31:00 PST
- Cc: kempf@Sun.COM, Common-Lisp-Object-System@Sail.Stanford.edu, CL-Compiler@Sail.Stanford.edu, cperdue%suntana@Sun.COM
- In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 30 Dec 88 20:07:12 -0800. <8812310407.AA16126@bhopal>
>packages just as a consistency check. Unfortunately, I don't see how
>to evaluate the myriads of consistency checks that could conceivable be
>placed in a "dumped" class; would they be worth the effort?
The class redefinition protocol is probably the right way to go here.
If there is a difference between the instance structure in the file
and in memory, it could be called to update the instance.
>This is not a problem in Lucid Common Lisp [by the bye, I'm assuming a
>single COMPILE-FILE -- I'm not talking about the problem of separate file
Sorry, I should have said "in a portable way." There are some Lisps
(maybe all of them now) which maintain EQLness over FASL for things
other than characters, symbols, and numbers. But the language spec
in CLtL doesn't require it.
jak