[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
suggested compiler feature.
- To: (BUG LISP) at MIT-MC, (BUG LISPM) at MIT-MC
- Subject: suggested compiler feature.
- From: GJC at MIT-MC (George J. Carrette)
- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 80 16:05:00 GMT
- Original-date: 14 JUL 1980 1205-EDT
(compiler-unwind-protect <form> <protected-forms ...>)
The semantics of this are simple, during alpha conversion <form>
is the expression which is the *value*, but the <protected-forms> are
evaluated even if the alpha conversion of <form> causes some error.
Which would have the following actions given that <FOO> has such
A free <FOO> => <expansion of FOO>
(setq <FOO> X) => (setf (expansion of FOO> X)
((lambda (<FOO>) <FORM>) X) => dissables the macro property of <FOO>
during the expansion of <FORM>. i.e. LAMBDA is a truely transparent.
If one wants to (BIND ((<FOO> ...)) ...) then some special BIND
form must be used. This is of course incompatible with the
existing semantics of special variables, but perhaps special variables
should be changed.
One motivation: for these things in maclisp and lmlisp is an
implementation of closures with lexically scoped instance
The claimed need for "compiler-unwind-protect" is that it is
not kosher for macros to call the compilers macro-expander.