[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: issue status, 12/12/88
- To: "firstname.lastname@example.org"@Multimax.encore.com (Sandra J Loosemore)
- Subject: Re: issue status, 12/12/88
- From: Dan L. Pierson <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Dec 88 17:52:29 EST
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
The NOTICE condition type hasn't happened yet. I was going to change
references to the NOTICE condition to the STYLE-WARNING condition,
which is a subtype of warning (allowing user condition handlers to use
the MUFFLE-WARNING restart on it to suppress the messages). Any
The NOTICE condition type is created by this proposal. There is no
need for any other action. I object to its removal on the grounds
that a separate issue to create it hasn't been passed in some other
place (are you thinking of Cleanup?).
Pierson indicated he wanted to submit an alternate proposal on this
issue, but hasn't done so. Can/should we go ahead with the current
A new (two proposal, sigh) version will immediately follow this reply.
There's been a suggestion that defining macros should only cause
compile-time side effects at top level, and that (EVAL-WHEN
(COMPILE)...) should be a no-op except at top level. Is this
agreeable to everybody?
I have no objections.
Do we really need all three options in the latest writeup?
ALWAYS and NOT-EVAL (:-)) can go away as far as I'm concerned.
same issue as CONSTANT-COMPILABLE-TYPES
I don't agree that this is just the same as CONSTANT-COMPILABLE-TYPES.
While I don't necessarily support FILE-COMPILATION as it stands, I do
support Kent and Jeff's belief that we need to simplify some of these
issues, provide some sort of unifying framework, and not sacrifice the
traditional strengths of Lisp to support simple file-compilation-only