[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue LOCALLY-TOP-LEVEL, v1
- To: Kim A. Barrett <IIM%ECLA@ECLC.USC.EDU>
- Subject: Issue LOCALLY-TOP-LEVEL, v1
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 89 18:51 EST
- Cc: cl-cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, cl-compiler@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: <12477306947.30.IIM@ECLA.USC.EDU>
Date: Sat 11 Mar 89 19:34:07-PST
From: Kim A. Barrett <IIM%ECLA@ECLC.USC.EDU>
This issue arguably ought to be a compiler issue, rather than cleanup, since
the compiler people seem to be the ones currently mucking about with what we
mean by top-level. (Besides, Larry is overworked as it is :-)
I may have sent it to the wrong committee by mistake. If either Sandra or
Larry instructs me to send it to the other committee, I'll do so forthwith.
More seriously, I support this idea, in part because of the frob example. This
kind of thing was one of the reasons I voted against the DECLARATION-SCOPE
By the way, my notes from the Hawaii meeting say that we passed the NO-HOISTING
proposal, and that LIMITED-HOISTING was not even called to a vote.
You're right, I copied down the wrong proposal name. What I said about
it is true of the NO-HOISTING proposal but false of the LIMITED-HOISTING
proposal. This needs to be fixed before it's distributed more widely.