[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: issue MACRO-ENVIRONMENT-EXTENT, version 2
- To: David N Gray <Gray@DSG.csc.ti.com>
- Subject: Re: issue MACRO-ENVIRONMENT-EXTENT, version 2
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 89 15:29 EST
- Cc: Sandra J Loosemore <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Kim A. Barrett <IIM%ECLA@ECLC.USC.EDU>, KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- In-reply-to: <2814811645-3263023@Kelvin>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 89 14:07:25 CST
From: David N Gray <Gray@DSG.csc.ti.com>
> It wouldn't be fine with me. I would much prefer that we use the same
> definition of dynamic extent here that we use everywhere else, namely
> the extent ends when the macroexpander function returns. That way we
> don't have to spend the next year figuring out precisely what the
> term "processed" means. I have already thought of two problems with it.
But if a strict dynamic extent is adopted, then environments can't be
included in the expansion of the macro, and functions such as
FIND-CLASS, ENSURE-GENERIC-FUNCTION, and ENSURE-CLASS that are supposed
to accept environment arguments will need to be redesigned.
That is correct.