[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: EVAL-OTHER (Version 2)
- To: miller@CS.Rochester.EDU
- Subject: Re: Issue: EVAL-OTHER (Version 2)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 6 Oct 88 02:10 EDT
- Cc: Common-Lisp-Object-System@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: <19881006022307.0.MILLER@DOUGHNUT.CS.ROCHESTER.EDU>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 88 22:23 EDT
From: Brad Miller <miller@ACORN.CS.ROCHESTER.EDU>
... I would suggest that the DEFSTRUCT (or DEFFLAVOR) have an option that
explicitly specifies the eval behavior. ...
The problem to this is that it's the same as allowing fexprs. This is
something we've worked hard to eliminate from CL because it is opaque
You could argue that MACROEXPAND-1 should be a generic function I suppose.
I have no strong feeling on that subject right now, but I'm biased against
it because we are very close to casting this stuff in concrete and I don't
feel totally comfortable that I understand the consequences of doing so.
One minor procedural matter: You're more likely to get this considered if
you write up the proposal in full rather than just as a little fragment.
I count 194 cleanup topics that have been raised, and it's getting harder
and harder to `maintain' them. Some are destined to fall through the cracks
for lack of time and anything that people have a minor bias against can be
very easily pocket-veto'd if it doesn't come in in a form that we can
directly vote on...