[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: Issue: IN-SYNTAX?
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 88 16:21 EDT
- Cc: email@example.com, CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: <881028144955.3.KMP@BOBOLINK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 88 14:49 EDT
From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.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?
Yes, if "bind the standard value" means "bind each variable to its standard
value" rather than "temporarily change what the standard value is." Of course
it would be an incompatible change.