[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: issue MACRO-ENVIRONMENT-EXTENT, version 2
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org (Sandra J Loosemore)
- Subject: Re: issue MACRO-ENVIRONMENT-EXTENT, version 2
- From: David N Gray <Gray@DSG.csc.ti.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 89 13:50:38 CST
- Cc: email@example.com, "David A. Moon" <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>, "Kim A. Barrett" <IIM%ECLA@ECLC.USC.EDU>
- In-reply-to: Msg of Mon, 13 Mar 89 11:41:04 MST from firstname.lastname@example.org (Sandra J Loosemore)
- Sender: GRAY@Kelvin.csc.ti.com
> Aha, that makes more sense now. However, how would you handle
> AUGMENT-ENVIRONMENT without modifying your implementation?
> Presumably it would have to add things to the list in the special
> variable, but how would you know when to take them off again?
I hadn't thought about that before, but that could be handled by using
the interpreter's representation for the AUGMENT-ENVIRONMENT data and
having the environment accessors look there before using the compiler's
special variables. The compiler wouldn't ever be looking at an
augmented environment; macros would, but the interpreter and compiler
already need to use the same representation for local macro definitions.