[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
issue QUOTE-SEMANTICS, version 2
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: issue QUOTE-SEMANTICS, version 2
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Tue, 14 Mar 89 19:48 EST
- Cc: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <8903131721.AA02184@defun.utah.edu>
I favor QUOTE-SEMANTICS:NO-COPYING for two reasons:
(1) it's clearly more aesthetic.
(2) I can't support either of the other two proposals because they use
the words "copying" and "coalescing" without defining their meaning.
My position could be changed to
QUOTE-SEMANTICS:COPYING-ALLOWED-BUT-NO-CONSTRAINTS by adding definitions
for those two words and by a strong argument that the implementation
cost of QUOTE-SEMANTICS:NO-COPYING is too high, since I believe to some
extent JonL's argument (quoted in the discussion section) that EQL of
(some types of) constants does not matter.
I can't imagine any argument that would convince me to
support QUOTE-SEMANTICS:SAME-AS-COMPILE-FILE. I believe Kent's
arguments against it (quoted in the discussion section).