[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: issue COMPILED-FUNCTION-REQUIREMENTS, version 4
- To: Barry Margolin <barmar@Think.COM>
- Subject: Re: issue COMPILED-FUNCTION-REQUIREMENTS, version 4
- From: Dan L. Pierson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 17:03:17 EST
- Cc: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 16 Mar 89 16:55:00 -0500.
Actually, now I'm also a bit confused. Since we passed the
FUNCTION-TYPE proposal, is the second argument to COMPILE
supposed to be a lambda expression or a function? Should I
have said (compile nil (source-code f)) ?
Not if you're interested in the value cell of f instead of the
Huh? Doesn't (source-code f) return the source lambda expression for
the function in the value cell of F? SOURCE-CODE is just a function, so
how could it access the function cell? By the way, I may be
misremembering the name we gave to the function that returns the
original lambda expression; please correct me if so.
Arg, I must be asleep today. Of course it does. However I believe
that COMPILE wants a function not a source lambda expression.