[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CLOS defining macros & compilation
- To: sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu (Sandra J Loosemore)
- Subject: Re: CLOS defining macros & compilation
- From: David N Gray <Gray@DSG.csc.ti.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 89 18:48:36 CST
- Cc: cl-compiler@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: Msg of Thu, 23 Feb 89 17:05:35 MST from sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu (Sandra J Loosemore)
- Sender: GRAY@Kelvin.csc.ti.com
> ... This implies
> that the environment object would have to appear as a quoted constant
> in the macro expansion. The proposal to give macro environment
> objects dynamic scope would give them dynamic scope *within the macro
> function*, which means it would not be legitimate for them to appear
> at all in the expansion returned from the macro.
Oh, OK. That still isn't quite indefinite extent though, more like the
extent of the compiler's processing of that lexical context. I'm just
concerned that the extent not extend beyond the time that COMPILE-FILE
finishes, and that it should not be valid to query an environment for
lexical context information after the compiler is no longer in that same
context. The latter restriction is so that I don't have to redesign my
compiler to keep all of its data in the form of environment objects, but
can define environment accessors that pick up the information from
wherever it currently happens to be kept.