[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: COMPILER-LET
- To: Sandra J Loosemore <sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu>
- Subject: Re: COMPILER-LET
- From: jbarnett@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 88 10:37:09 -0700
- Cc: common-lisp@sail.stanford.edu, cl-compiler@sail.stanford.edu, jbarnett@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com
- In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 26 Sep 88 13:36:01 -0600. <8809261936.AA05384@defun.utah.edu>
Sorry, the mailer and I weren't coordinated and the first half of this slipped
away.
The point of the first half is that if you wanted to COMPILER-LET several
variables that were consumed by the same macro, the combinatorics of your
solution would be bad news. Further, in your solution, the scope is wrong.
In general, COMPILER-LET and MACRO-LET, will appear semi-independently and if
both are used the nesting order is critical.
In any event, I hope that COMPILER-LET remains in the language. I have found it
an easy and natural construct to use for implementing various language
extentions. In addition, it seems that it should be trivial to make EVALed
forms enjoy the same semantics that the compiler proffers.
- References:
- COMPILER-LET
- From: sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu (Sandra J Loosemore)