Re: reducing time overhead of text display (in 1.1)

• To: clarisse@iexist.att.com, clim@BBN.COM, chyde@BBN.COM, pnorvig@norvig.east.sun.com
• Subject: Re: reducing time overhead of text display (in 1.1)
• From: Scott McKay <SWM@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com>
• Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 12:39 -0500
• In-Reply-To: <9312211535.AA19101@tenet.lab5523>

    Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 10:35 EST
    From: clarisse@iexist.att.com

    I agree with your previous point.
    >
    > (Unfortunately, since CLtL2 the user is not allowed to write compiler macros
    > for built-in functions.)
    > 
    Can you clarify this one for me. I'm simply missing it reading CLtL2 pp.205-207.
    Do you have an example of a compiler macro for a built-in function in CLtL1
    that is not allowed in CLtL2. My impression was that I could always shadow
    built-in functions define a compiler macro that does the argument optimization
    and call the built-in from its original package. I agree, if a build-in function
    is poor (not efficient) there is not much else I can do but to redefine it.

I forget what the issue was named, but user programs are not allowed to
add new "properties" to symbols that are defined by dpANS.  That is, you
can't say (DEFVAR CAR 20) (I think), or (as Peter points out) you can't
define a compiler macro for FIND (for example).

Not all Lisp implementations fully enforce this, but I imagine that many
of them will.

• Re: reducing time overhead of text display (in 1.1)
• From: clarisse@iexist.att.com

• Prev: Re: reducing time overhead of text display (in 1.1)
• Next: Re: reducing time overhead of text display (in 1.1)
• Index: CLIM Mailing list (1-Jan-93 to 31-May-94)
• Thread: CLIM Mailing list Index (1-Jan-93 to 31-May-94)