[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue DEFCONSTANT-NOT-WIRED (V2)
- To: "Dan L. Pierson" <pierson%mist@multimax.ARPA>
- Subject: Re: Issue DEFCONSTANT-NOT-WIRED (V2)
- From: David N Gray <Gray@DSG.csc.ti.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 88 18:15:08 CST
- Cc: CL-Compiler@SAIL.Stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: Msg of Mon, 31 Oct 88 13:26:20 EST from Dan L. Pierson <pierson%mist@multimax.ARPA>
- Sender: GRAY@Kelvin.csc.ti.com
> 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).
But the whole point is that this isn't completely the same as a
DEFCONSTANT. DEFCONSTANT could be defined in terms of a CONSTANT
proclamation plus some other proclamation that authorized the compiler
to wire-in the value. I don't see a need to standardize a
user interface to that other piece.
> On the other hand, if you want to rename your proposed new
> declaration, I might be willing to support it.
I'm open to suggestions of a better name.