[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue COMPILER-LET-CONFUSION, version 1
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Issue COMPILER-LET-CONFUSION, version 1
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Wed, 5 Oct 88 18:29 EDT
- Cc: Gray@dsg.csc.ti.com, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <8810052202.AA14907@defun.utah.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 88 16:02:10 MDT
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Sandra J Loosemore)
> > Proposal COMPILER-LET-CONFUSION:REQUIRE-PREPASS:
> I'm leaning in favor of a variation of this approach that would say that
> if an implementation does not normally do a preprocessing code walk, then
> the evaluator's implementation of COMPILER-LET needs to do a macro
> expansion code walk on its body forms before evaluating them. We
> currently do macro expansion as needed during evaluation, yet it would be
> a trivial change to have COMPILER-LET invoke MACROEXPAND-ALL on its body.
> This should only be a hardship for any implementation that doesn't do a
> pre-pass and doesn't already have a MACROEXPAND-ALL.
I suspect that most implementations that don't do a code-walking prepass
in the interpreter don't have anything like MACROEXPAND-ALL, either, so
this may not really buy anything. I suppose this could be presented as
yet another alternative in the next iteration of the writeup on this
issue. Does anybody else like this idea?
If you mean REQUIRE-PREPASS -- yes, I certainly do.