[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue DEFCONSTANT-NOT-WIRED (V2)
- To: David N Gray <Gray%DSG.csc.ti.com@multimax>
- Subject: Re: Issue DEFCONSTANT-NOT-WIRED (V2)
- From: Dan L. Pierson <pierson%mist@multimax.ARPA>
- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 88 13:26:20 EST
- Cc: CL-Compiler%SAIL.Stanford.edu@multimax
- In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 27 Oct 88 19:15:29 -0500. <2802989729-1516801@Kelvin>
The last time this issue came up, it go bogged down in an argument
about how to define DEFCONSTANT in terms of a CONSTANT proclamation.
While the bogging down was unfortunate, I believe that the strong
connection between DEFCONSTANT and any CONSTANT declaration is obvious
and correct. Therefore I oppose any CONSTANT declaration which
doesn't duplicate the semantics of DEFCONSTANT (and I'd really like to
see DEFCONSTANT defined in terms of such a declaration).
On the other hand, if you want to rename your proposed new
declaration, I might be willing to support it.