[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: FUNCTION-TYPE (Version 5)
- To: NGALL@G.BBN.COM
- Subject: Issue: FUNCTION-TYPE (Version 5)
- From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1987 10:57 EDT
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: Msg of 23 Jun 1987 01:34-EDT from NGALL at G.BBN.COM
- Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
There are lots of ways in which an implementation could provide tracing
facilities for anonymous function objects. For human-interface
purposes, function objects would be identified using some label that is
derived from the original name under which the funciton was defined.
This information could be hidden in some slot of the function object or
(somewhat more portably) associated with it in a hashtable.
I haven't thought this through, but I bet that one could develop a trace
facility like the one you describe, but using anonymous stand-in
functions that print something and then call the original function
(which can be redefined) rather than using a symbol as a wrapper. This
might even be strictly portable, which your hack is not.
If the same debugging functionality can be achieved in a different way,
I don't see the elimination of one dubious hack as a strong argument for
keeping the status quo.