[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
**DRAFT** issue MACRO-ENVIRONMENT-EXTENT, version 3
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: **DRAFT** issue MACRO-ENVIRONMENT-EXTENT, version 3
- From: Barry Margolin <barmar@Think.COM>
- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 89 21:06 EST
- In-reply-to: <8903132355.AA02585@defun.utah.edu>
I'm not really sure how I feel about this issue. My gut reaction is
that only dynamic extent should really be necessary.
In any case, if DYNAMIC-WITH-COPIER is seriously proposed, I'd prefer a
different name for the function. A function COPY-xxx that is permitted
to return its argument instead of a copy seems poorly named (do we have
any other such functions?). COPY-ENVIRONMENT-IF-NECESSARY is better,
since it explicitly mentions the conditional nature, but it's pretty
long (but how often will it be used?). INDEFINITE-EXTENT-ENVIRONMENT is
also a good name, but just as long.
Maybe a declaration is the right thing for this, as in the
DYNAMIC-EXTENT cleanup proposal. I'd prefer dynamic extent to be the
default, with a declaration to request indefinite extent since that is
less commonly needed. Implementations may ignore the declaration, but
they must then always provide indefinite extent. A simpler proposal
would be to make indefinite extent the default, and then the
DYNAMIC-EXTENT cleanup proposal would permit programmers to explicitly
declare dynamic environments.