[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: GJC at MIT-MC
- From: Glenn S. Burke <GSB at MIT-ML>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 81 22:35:00 GMT
- Cc: BUG-LISP at MIT-MC
- Original-date: 17 February 1981 17:35-EST
Date: 17 February 1981 17:22-EST
From: George J. Carrette <GJC at MIT-MC>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 81 21:12:00 GMT
Original-Date: 02/17/81 17:12:00 EDT
From: GSB at MIT-ML
there is no need to extend the evaluator to deal with a class-object
in the CAR of the hunk, as the evaluator already dispatches via
(status usrhunk). It is the COMPILER which requires that slot to
have a dummy macro definition ...
The compiler eh? Oh foobar. JONL can extend that can't he?
Certainly nobody would object if he did. (Or would they?)
I'm sure it can be extended upwards-compatibly with the user-hunk stuff.
Probably want two messages, one for "macro-expanding" code-being-compiled,
and one for "macro-expanding" code being macro-expanded.
Probably non-user-hunk hunks want to be treated as they are now; fall
through to the list case.