[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue CONSTANT-COMPILABLE-TYPES, version 7
- To: Richard P. Gabriel <rpg@lucid.com>
- Subject: Re: Issue CONSTANT-COMPILABLE-TYPES, version 7
- From: sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu (Sandra J Loosemore)
- Date: Sun, 12 Mar 89 11:43:10 MST
- Cc: sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu, cperdue@Sun.COM, cl-compiler@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: Richard P. Gabriel <rpg@lucid.com>, Sun, 12 Mar 89 10:19:40 PST
Hmmm. I suppose it would work to dump the troublesome functions by
name, assuming of course that you can determine what the name is.
What do you do for an anonymous function?
To me, the real question is whether there are benefits from dumping
constant functions that would justify all the work involved for
implementors. I guess I would take more seriously your arguments
about them deserving better treatment at the hands of the compiler if
you were also proposing to require them to have a PRINTed
representation such that they can be READ in again. After all, such
non-Lispy things as pathnames and arrays get better treatment than
functions....
-Sandra
-------