[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: issue SAFE-CODE, version 1
- To: ROSENKING@A.ISI.EDU
- Subject: Re: issue SAFE-CODE, version 1
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 89 17:56 EST
- Cc: cl-compiler@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: <[A.ISI.EDU]13-Mar-89 16:14:03.ROSENKING>
The concept of ``safe code'' is already defined by the issue
ERROR-TERMINOLOGY. It is needed in order to define the term ``should
signal.'' See that proposal for details.
SAFE-CODE is only the issue name, it is not the name of any
The only issue here is whether the abstract term ``safe code''
in Kathy's ERROR-TERMINOLOGY has any mapping to what you do
in your code. This issue seeks to define that at least in the
situation where you ask for (OPTIMIZE (SAFETY 3)), you are asking
for safe code.
If you agree that saying (OPTIMIZE (SAFETY 3)) is asking for your
code to be safe, then I think you should support this proposal.
If what you are worried about is whether the default in the absence
of such a declaration is `safe' or `unsafe' -- a separate issue
(now before CL-Cleanup) will address this. I believe the issue
is called OPTIMIZE-SAFETY.
In retrospect, it's clear I should not have split the two issues
but at the time it seemed like the right thing.