Re: Issue CONSTANT-COMPILABLE-TYPES, version 7

[Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>]

> I guess I pretty strongly object to leaving functions out of the list
> of constants that can appear in compiled code. The part that's
> disturbing is that such non-Lispy things like arrays, hashtables, and
> pathnames get better treatment than functions, the most Lispy part of
> Common Lisp.

I'd like to be able to dump functions, but some Common Lisps will
find it difficult to dump arbitrary compiled functions.  Dumping
names would be OK.

Arrays get better treatment because they have convenient printed
representations.  I suppose disassemble might be used...

> I wonder how many implementations will be forced to come within an
> inch of the required functionality to implement a first-rate CLOS?

But we don't require that implementations of CLOS be first-rate.