[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
draft of alternate proposal for EVAL-WHEN-NON-TOP-LEVEL
- To: sandra%defun@CS.UTAH.EDU
- Subject: draft of alternate proposal for EVAL-WHEN-NON-TOP-LEVEL
- From: Kim A. Barrett <IIM@ECLA.USC.EDU>
- Date: Tue 28 Feb 89 13:43:00-PST
- Cc: cl-compiler@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, iim@ECLA.USC.EDU
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Sandra J Loosemore)
> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 89 16:27:57 MST
> and merge that with the new interpretation of the EVAL situation from Kent's
> GENERALIZE-EVAL proposal from version 5.
But I don't want to see EVAL generalized in this way. I don't agree with the
> * The keyword `EVAL' is a misnomer because execution of
> the body need not be done by EVAL. In compiled code, such as
> (DEFUN FOO () (EVAL-WHEN (EVAL) (PRINT 'FOO)))
> it is permissible (even desirable) for the call to PRINT to be compiled.
I think that if that got compiled then FOO should be a function of no arguments
which does nothing and returns NIL. I want a way to distinguish between
interpreted and compiled cases.