[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: Issue: IN-SYNTAX?
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 88 14:49 EDT
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: <19881028181006.2.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 88 14:10 EDT
From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Only one comment from me: be careful not to make it impossible to write
programs that set up the environment that they know they want, and then
call LOAD or COMPILE-FILE. In other words, right now those functions
are (approximately) primitives that just do one thing, and if they are
changed to also set up a particular environment, the primitives need to
remain accessible too.
Saying that LOAD and COMPILE-FILE bind the standard value of the variables
in question (and perhaps all standard variables) and then saying that people
should do LET-STANDARD-VALUE in the scenario you allude to would be ok, right?