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


I guess I pretty strongly object to leaving functions out of the list
of constants that can appear in compiled code. The part that's
disturbing is that such non-Lispy things like arrays, hashtables, and
pathnames get better treatment than functions, the most Lispy part of
Common Lisp. I wonder how many implementations will be forced to come
within an inch of the required functionality to implement a first-rate

The specification of the subset of functions that are acceptable as
compiled constants cannot be tested for within Common Lisp itself.

I suggest we ask implementors (Lucid included) to bite the bullet and
handle this case correctly. Won't our grandchildren appreciate us
treating Common Lisp like Lisp and not like PASCAL?

Also, as will be seen in a subsequent message, there might be other
compiler issues that can be treated my esthetically were this issue
fixed up.