[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: CONSTANT-SIDE-EFFECTS (no proposal)
- To: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: Issue: CONSTANT-SIDE-EFFECTS (no proposal)
- From: Jon L White <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 88 21:07:35 PDT
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: Kent M Pitman's message of Thu, 13 Oct 88 15:52 EDT <881013155257.8.KMP@BOBOLINK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
re: My notes from Fairfax meeting...
I remember remarking at the committee meeting that Jim Miller of the
Scheme community thought an important aspect of the "constants" problem
was to make "read-only-ness" a first class concept -- that being the only
way to distinguish the objects stored by a defparameter and those stored
by a defconstant [many, if not most, implementors concerned with this
issue have some phase wherein "constants" are put into a write-protected
memory.] It wouldn't take much to add a couple functions like:
CONSTANT-STORAGE-P -- tells whether an object is stored in "constants area",
which is considered "read-only"; it may or may not
actually be write-protected.
CONSTANT-COPY -- copies a random object into the "constants area" memory
But of course, since there isn't even a function COPY in CL, there will
be lots of discussion on this matter.
-- JonL --