[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: issue COMPILED-FUNCTION-REQUIREMENTS, version 4
- To: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: Re: issue COMPILED-FUNCTION-REQUIREMENTS, version 4
- From: email@example.com (Sandra J Loosemore)
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 89 08:58:09 MST
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>, Tue, 14 Mar 89 20:27 EST
> I have no objection to the proposed specification of what the COMPILE
> and COMPILE-FILE functions do, but it should be decoupled from the
> COMPILED-FUNCTION type and discussed under the rubric of those two
I was envisioning that this material would end up in section 4.2 of
the standard, in the subsection that presents our simple model of what
a compiler does. If proposal TIGHTEN passes, the definition of the
COMPILED-FUNCTION type in section 2.2 would contain a reference to it.
I don't have any any objection to restoring the FLUSH proposal.