[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
suggested compiler feature.
- To: HIC at MIT-MC
- Subject: suggested compiler feature.
- From: George J. Carrette <GJC at MIT-MC>
- Date: Tue ,15 Jul 80 22:43:00 EDT
cc: BUG-LISP at MIT-MC, BUG-LISPM at MIT-MC
Date: 15 July 1980 16:13-EDT
From: Howard I. Cannon <HIC at MIT-MC>
cc: BUG-LISP, BUG-LISPM
Re: suggested compiler feature.
I meant to imply in my previous message that I think that GJC's
lambda-list sggstion is also wrong.
I might have to agree with you on that. The reason that I suggested
that LAMBDA push away atomic macro properties is to meet the
objection of EB, that is, that (SETQ <ATOM> ...) only mean to
setq a variable. In the case of a lexically apparent variable
EB could be confident that (SETQ <ATOM> ...) meant only
a very efficient and simple thing. SETQ of a special variable
would be another thing entirely.
Implementing the lambda-list suggestion in the interpreter
would be non-trivial. All lambda expressions would have to
have a pointer to the lexical contour in which they
Anyway, what is the right thing to do in lambda-lists?