[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: **DRAFT** Issue COMPILER-VERBOSITY, version 5
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: **DRAFT** Issue COMPILER-VERBOSITY, version 5
- From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 7 Jan 89 21:00 PST
- Cc: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- In-reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org (Sandra J Loosemore)'s message of Sat, 7 Jan 89 10:45:08 MST
The benefits seem pretty weak given the cost. Why would I want a portable
way to control how much information is printed by COMPILE-FILE?
I can see wanting to have a portable way to compile a file, so I can
distribute a standard procedure for compiling my system, but most of the
print/informational stuff varies so widely, is of different format, and is
generally of use only while debugging code in a single system.
The Medley version of COMPILE-FILE, for example, has several other
control-parameters that one might also want "portable" control over, except
that those aren't really portable: for example, you can ask it for an
assembly listing of everything it compiles; you can give it a pathname for
a new file for "errors" and have it automatically rebind *standard-error*
to that file, etc.
(compile-file input-file &key :output-file :lap-file :error-file
:errors-to-terminal :file-manager-format :process-entire-file :load)
I don't see any more need for making these "portable" options than I do
:verbose and :print.)