[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: TAGBODY-CONTENTS (Version 3)
- To: peck@SUN.COM
- Subject: Re: Issue: TAGBODY-CONTENTS (Version 3)
- From: David N Gray <Gray@DSG.csc.ti.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Oct 88 13:36:26 CDT
- Cc: Kent M Pitman <KMP@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>, CL-Cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: Msg of Tue, 04 Oct 88 15:15:49 -0700 from peck@SUN.COM
- Sender: GRAY@Kelvin.csc.ti.com
> Is anybody concerned about macros that expand to a tagbody with NIL forms?
> If NIL is a statement in a tagbody then they disappear quietly,
> especially after a pass by a good compiler.
> With the current proposal, though, one will get:
> "ERROR: Multiple appearances of tag NIL."
> I don't know what current practice is, if code like this has
> always signalled an error then this is a total non-issue.
> If not, it might be noted as a possible conversion cost.
The Explorer permits using NIL as a GO tag, but as a special case, does
not warn about multiple appearances of NIL.