[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: LET-TOP-LEVEL (version 1)
- To: Pavel.pa%Xerox.COM@multimax
- Subject: Re: Issue: LET-TOP-LEVEL (version 1)
- From: Dan L. Pierson <pierson@mist>
- Date: Wed, 02 Mar 88 08:46:45 EST
- Cc: cl-cleanup%sail.stanford.edu@multimax
- In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 01 Mar 88 13:24:19 -0800.
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 88 13:24:19 PST
Subject: Re: Issue: LET-TOP-LEVEL (version 1)
Please excuse my regrinding of your message where the lines didn't fit
after being indented.
First, I would claim that this is a ``clarification'' as opposed
to an ``addition''. I see no language in CLtL to support the
belief that DEFUN can only be used in certain scopes. This
reminds me of the debate over whether or not the compiler is
required to be reentrant; of course it is, for the same reason
that MAP is, for example: it's just another function with a
The CLtL reference is page 66, 5.3 Top-Level Forms:
"It is not illegal to use these forms at other than top level, but
whether it is meaningful to do so depends on context. Compilers,
for example, may not recognize these forms at other than top-level
In any case, I don't oppose the proposal because I think it's important for
implementors to support this style. I have some other comments, though.
Why does the proposal not cover all of the defining forms? In
particular, why not DEFMACRO? It makes just as much sense for the
expansion function to be a closure. Of course, the compiler will not
be able to expand uses of that macro later in the same file, since it
can't provide the proper lexical environment to the expansion
function, but that just means that this style would have to be used in
a separate file that is loaded before compilation of uses of the
macro. The same goes for the defining forms DEFSTRUCT, DEFTYPE, etc.
I may have gotten confused here, my thinking was that since MACROLET
ignores lexical bindings that DEFMACRO should too. I don't feel
strongly about this though.
I not particularly happy with the explicit use of the term
``top-level'', but until Rob's compiler proposal gets a fair
hearing, I don't see any way around it.
It's the current CLtL language, I'd be happy to see it changed.