[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue PROCLAIM-ETC-IN-COMPILE-FILE
- To: David N Gray <Gray@dsg.csc.ti.com>
- Subject: Re: Issue PROCLAIM-ETC-IN-COMPILE-FILE
- From: email@example.com (Sandra J Loosemore)
- Date: Sat, 17 Sep 88 10:25:18 MDT
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: David N Gray <Gray@DSG.csc.ti.com>, Fri, 16 Sep 88 20:41:44 CDT
This proposal seems like a reasonable fallback in the event that we
are unable to decide what else to do with the N random package forms.
There was some discussion earlier on defining a DEFPROCLAIM macro.
There has also been an issue before the cleanup committee to remove or
change the meaning of REQUIRE.
For the current practice section, VaxLisp evaluates PROCLAIMs at
One thing that might be confusing about this proposal is the use of
the adjective "top-level". If the special form EVAL-WHEN is implemented
as a macro (as suggested in proposal EVAL-WHEN-NON-TOP-LEVEL), then
the call to REQUIRE might also appear to be "top-level" (because the
EVAL-WHEN would expand into a PROGN):
(eval-when (eval load)
It might bear repeating that EVAL-WHEN is a special form and that its
subforms are never "top-level".