[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: DEFSTRUCT-ACCESS-FUNCTIONS (Version 1)
- To: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Subject: Re: Issue: DEFSTRUCT-ACCESS-FUNCTIONS (Version 1)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 88 19:28 EST
- Cc: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: <881110-155555-5818@Xerox>
Date: 10 Nov 88 15:55 PST
I don't see what the problem is. Why is "It is left up to the
implementation whether or not the DEFSTRUCT access
function is declared inline." a problem at all?
I didn't raise this issue -- Kathy did. I'm not sure where she got it.
But since I happen to have endorsed it, I'll say why I did:
To keep people from having to write:
(PROCLAIM '(INLINE FOO-A FOO-B FOO-C))
(DEFSTRUCT FOO A B C)
I've seen this in portable code a number of times and it always turns my stomach.