[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: issue COMPILED-FUNCTION-REQUIREMENTS, version 4
- To: Dan L. Pierson <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: issue COMPILED-FUNCTION-REQUIREMENTS, version 4
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Sandra J Loosemore)
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 13:09:11 MST
- Cc: Barry Margolin <barmar@FAFNIR.THINK.COM>, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: Dan L. Pierson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Thu, 16 Mar 89 14:18:10 EST
> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 14:18:10 EST
> From: Dan L. Pierson <email@example.com>
> What I (and believe Kent) want is a guarantee that it won't signal an
> error; if nothing else works COMPILE will simply apply #'IDENTITY to
> the symbol's function.
If this is the position people really want to adopt, I think we ought
to flush the COMPILED-FUNCTION type. I can't imagine it would be
very useful in declarations if we always allow COMPILE to be a no-op
and never require it to return a COMPILED-FUNCTION.
I was going to restore the FLUSH proposal to this issue anyway, since
some people have now expressed an interest in seeing it back.
I still think that the minimum requirements for compilation specified in
the proposal should apply to COMPILE-FILE, regardless of what happens
to COMPILE and COMPILED-FUNCTION.