[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: WITH-COMPILATION-UNIT (Version 1)
- To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@scrc-stony-brook.arpa>, sandra <@cs.utah.edu:sandra@defun>
- Subject: Re: Issue: WITH-COMPILATION-UNIT (Version 1)
- From: Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 88 21:35:14 BST
- Cc: CL-Compiler@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: Kent M Pitman's message of Fri, 30 Sep 88 12:34 EDT
> Date: Thu, 29 Sep 88 19:28:25 MDT
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Sandra J Loosemore)
> This issue strikes me as a special case of "block compilation" across
> multiple files.
> This issue has nothing to do with block-compilation, although we could
> extend the syntax to permit an options list before the body so that
> implementations could provide options like that if they wanted.
There seem to be a number of issues regarding compilation units.
There is this proposal and the one to limit the scope of
proclamations. There may be some interest in providing a license
for block compilation (well, there's INLINE, but (among other things)
it's not refelected in the interpreter semantics).
Can we tie these together somehow rather than have a number of
separate proposals, each using different mechanisms?
BTW, INCLUDE (as in "insert this file here") could be used to make
a file compilation treat several files as a unit.