[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
symbol-macrolet-semantics, symbol-macrolet-utility
- To: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM, Jeffrey Piazza <piazza%lisp.DEC@decwrl.dec.com>, Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>, Dan L. Pierson <pierson%mist@MULTIMAX.ARPA>, Barry Margolin <barmar@Think.COM>, cl-cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: symbol-macrolet-semantics, symbol-macrolet-utility
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Wed, 7 Sep 88 23:03 EDT
- Cc: Common-Lisp-Object-System@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, cl-cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, Jeffrey Piazza <"piazza%lisp.DEC@decwrl.dec.com"@MULTIMAX.ARPA>
- In-reply-to: <871123130424.8.GREGOR@SPIFF.parc.xerox.com>, <8806222146.AA21530@decwrl.dec.com>, <8806281758.AA10391@decwrl.dec.com>, <880628165306.6.KMP@RIO-DE-JANEIRO.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>, <8806291818.AA11107@mist.UUCP>, <19880629204455.4.GREGOR@PORTNOY.parc.xerox.com>, <19880729021542.8.BARMAR@OCCAM.THINK.COM>, <8807292109.AA03546@decwrl.dec.com>, <880801135717.1.KMP@PEWEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Line-fold: No
I thought it was already well-established that symbol-macrolet has to
be a special form, not a macro, and has to affect the behavior of
macroexpand. 10 months ago I argued that symbol-macrolet didn't
have to be a special form, but I was quite wrong.
I favor the proposal SYMBOL-MACROLET-SEMANTICS:SPECIAL-FORM except
for the part about forbidding use of symbol macros with SETQ
(and macros such as MULTIPLE-VALUE-SETQ and PSETQ that presumably
expand into SETQ), which I think is an unnecessary incompatible
change.