re: Compiler section (4.2)

[Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>]

[In reply to message from Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM sent Mon, 15 May 89 20:11 EDT.]

Moon writes:

``I don't think so, or even known what it would mean, because this is a
statement about COMPILE-FILE, not about the compiler.  Maybe LOAD of
a source file may assume ....?''

[rpg: I'm imagining an implementation strategy in which a separate image
with a compiler compile-file's all input to the ``real Lisp'' and the real
Lisp loads it. You can also imagine that the ``real Lisp'' is clever to
batch up forms to be compiled to the compiler image,  making the analogy
to a file more precise.  Possibly this is stretching the point. (Also, the
collaboration between these two processes must be tight to provide the
right behavior according to what COMPILE must do.]

Moon writes:

``I prefer this also.  The only problem is that the objects aren't always
actually constructed, sometimes they already exist and are just referenced.
It's not clear that fixing that would improve understandability, so leave it.''

[rpg: Quite right. How about this:

COMPILE-FILE, on the other hand, must produce an output file which when
loaded with LOAD constructs or references or both the objects defined by
the source code.]