[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: bug-lisp at MIT-MC, nil at MIT-MC
- Subject: "Inline-able"
- From: GLS at SU-AI (Guy Steele)
- Date: Mon, 19 Jun 78 23:54:00 GMT
- Original-date: 19 Jun 1978 1654-PDT
I object to the introduction of the jargon "inline-able"
into the language. While it is fine for internal use,
it is one more thing to have to explain to the outside world.
Moreover, it is syntactically incorrect, for "inline" (or rather,
"in-line") is not a verb. Finally, it is a misnomer: ANY
expr is potentially integrable (the standard term, though I
don't much like it either), and the use of DEFUN-ILE or whatever
serves merely as advice to the compiler that such integration
is *desirable* rather than *possible*. Indeed, it may be useful
to have a form of local declaration (which logically ought to
be called INTEGRATE, but that has obvious drawbacks!) which would
specify that the code for given procedures is to be integrated
where referenced in the scope of the declaration. While I recall
having earlier been convinced that this declared property should
be attached to the procedure and not to its name, now I am not so sure.