[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: ELIMINATE-FORCED-CONSING (Version 3)
- To: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, trwrb!smpvax1!jrg@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
- Subject: Re: Issue: ELIMINATE-FORCED-CONSING (Version 3)
- From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 31 Oct 88 11:40 PST
- In-reply-to: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>'s message of Thu, 13 Oct 88 16:33 EDT
We need to be careful about cc'ing the relevant parties on discussion on of
issues. I've forwarded to jrg those messages that originally went to
This issue was not distributed to X3J13 prior to the meeting, I think. I am
reluctant to have it on the list with its current name and am tempted, at
this late date, to rename it.
(SEQUENCE-FUNCTIONS-CONSING:ADD-TARGET-KEYWORDS) or some such.
Jim Allard, I believe, made the comment that, given a dynamic-extent
construct, it is possible to do "cons-free" programming with some larger
awkwardness by writing an idiom where the new sequence is generated with
dynamic extent and then the old sequence is either copied or modified.
I wonder whether some special purpose recognizition of idiomatic nesting of
REPLACE with a sequence function inside compilers or optimizers might well
have the same benefit without increasing the apparent complexity of the
language. (I believe some APL compilers work this way.)