[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


> 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.