[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Compiler cleanup issues, again
- To: Ram@c.cs.cmu.edu
- Subject: Re: Compiler cleanup issues, again
- From: email@example.com (Sandra J Loosemore)
- Date: Tue, 1 Mar 88 18:18:44 MST
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: Ram@C.CS.CMU.EDU, Tue, 1 Mar 1988 18:47 EST
> But I think that the value of in-person meeting time is overrated.
Actually, I agree. But there hasn't been anything happening via e-mail
or over the telephone, either.
> What sort of small, well-defined proposals (that have been tabled) do
> you have in mind?
I submitted two to the cleanup committee before the November meeting.
One was an attempt to specify how top-level forms in a file (such as
DEFMACRO or DEFSETF) affect how COMPILE-FILE compiles subsequent forms
in the file. At that time, the cleanup committee didn't want to
consider compiler-related issues at all, although there did seem to be
an overwhelming agreement with the actual content of the proposal.
The other proposal tried to specify how REQUIRE works in a little more
detail so that it would actually be meaningful to use in specifying
inter-file compilation dependencies. On this one, there was a general
feeling that PROVIDE and REQUIRE were a poor substitute for a DEFSYSTEM
utility. At the November meeting I volunteered to send a draft
DEFSYSTEM proposal around to the compiler subcommittee for review (and
in fact I have had both documentation and code sitting around for
months), but in spite of repeated promises from Steve, our mailing list
has never materialized and I don't have e-mail addresses for everybody
(where's David Bartley?).