[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proposal LOAD-TIME-EVAL:REVISED-NEW-SPECIAL-FORM
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org (Sandra J Loosemore)
- Subject: Re: proposal LOAD-TIME-EVAL:REVISED-NEW-SPECIAL-FORM
- From: David N Gray <Gray@DSG.csc.ti.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Sep 88 19:21:17 CDT
- Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: Msg of Mon, 19 Sep 88 14:06:15 MDT from email@example.com (Sandra J Loosemore)
- Sender: GRAY@Kelvin.csc.ti.com
> If I hear some favorable
> feedback on what I've got so far, I'll finish it up the rest of it.
It looks good to me.
> Implementations must guarantee that each reference to a LOAD-TIME-VALUE
> expression within a form to be evaluated results in at least one
> evaluation of <form>. It is not permissible to "collapse" either
> multiple references to the same (EQ) LOAD-TIME-VALUE expression or
> EQUAL expressions.
> The prohibition against collapsing of shared or EQUAL LOAD-TIME-VALUE
> expressions prevents problems that could result by performing destructive
> side-effects on a value that is referenced in more than one place.
So maybe collapsing needs to be prohibited only when the read-only-p
argument is NIL?