[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: PROCLAIM-ETC-IN-COMPILE-FILE
- To: vanroggen%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
- Subject: Re: Issue: PROCLAIM-ETC-IN-COMPILE-FILE
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Sandra J Loosemore)
- Date: Wed, 21 Sep 88 12:18:57 MDT
- Cc: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: vanroggen%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com, Wed, 21 Sep 88 08:09:45 PDT
> Date: Wed, 21 Sep 88 08:09:45 PDT
> From: vanroggen%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
> If DEFPACKAGE is adopted, would we want to remove the package related
> functions from this list of specially treated top-level forms?
I think we should at least consider doing so. The main reason why I
do not think we should try to put this issue up for a vote just yet is
so we can see what happens to DEFPACKAGE first, and what the sentiment
is about making an incompatible change to the language. Assuming
DEFPACKAGE is accepted, do people view it as a replacement for the
magical behavior of the package functions, or just as another way to
do the same thing?
> I really don't think PROCLAIM '(OPTIMIZE ...) should be a special case.
> It's much simpler to think of PROCLAIM always affecting global information.
> Also, how would one cause the PROCLAIM '(OPTIMIZE ...) to be evaluated
> at load time? Is it assumed to be wrapped in an EVAL-WHEN (COMPILE EVAL)
> if the argument is (QUOTE (OPTIMIZE ...)) but in an EVAL-WHEN (COMPILE LOAD
> EVAL) otherwise? What if the argument isn't quite of that format? And
> how would a user get the behavior, if the default behavior is to just
> affect the compilation environment, to get both that and have it be
> executed at load-time?
This is also my biggest complaint about the proposal as it stands. I'm all
for getting rid of exceptions and special cases.