[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Kent M Pitman <KMP%STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM@multimax>
- Subject: Re: COMPILER-LET
- From: Dan L. Pierson <pierson%mist@multimax.ARPA>
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 88 18:13:54 EDT
- Cc: cl-compiler%sail.stanford.edu@multimax
- In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 26 Sep 88 17:11:00 -0400.
In my opinion, the real problem is that interpreted-only
implementations are not required to make a semantic-prepass. This
means that macro expansion and COMPILER-LET handling may happen all at
once or at any known time, so it must risk interfering with runtime
variable bindings. If interpreters were required to do the pre-pass
(effectively, a mini-compile just doing macro expansion, etc), not
only would COMPILER-LET seem ok, but other problem spots in the
language (like EVAL-WHEN) would be easier to tackle as well.
This may be too advanced for this late date, but...
Would this (and other) problems be reduced if we defined a
code-walking primitive and required it in the language? Would this
reduce Sandra's objection to forcing all interpreters to do a pre-pass?