[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
DEFVAR-DOCUMENTATION (Version 1)
- To: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: DEFVAR-DOCUMENTATION (Version 1)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jun 87 01:26 EDT
- Cc: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
References: DEFVAR, DEFPARAMETER, DEFCONSTANT (pp68-9)
Edit history: 30-Jun-87, Version 1 by Pitman
Status: For Internal Discussion
CLtL is not explicit about whether the documentation part of
DEFVAR, DEFPARAMETER, and DEFCONSTANT special forms is evaluated.
Clarify that the documentation part of DEFVAR, DEFPARAMETER, and
DEFCONSTANT special forms is not evaluated. That is, it must be
a literal string, not a form which evaluates to a string.
To ensure portability, implementations must agree on whether or not
this position is evaluated. Specifying that the position is unevaluated
is the conservative thing to suggest.
Some implementations evaluate this position. Others do not.
The change is presumably trivial in all implementations.
Code portability would be improved.
Code which uses other than a literal string is not portable, so no portable
programs will be broken. Some non-portable programs which rely on a particular
vendor's interpretation would have to be rewritten. Automatic tools to detect
most offending cases could trivially be constructed.
No significant impact.
Pitman thinks this is a good idea.