[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue COMPILER-LET-CONFUSION, v3
- To: jeff%aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Issue COMPILER-LET-CONFUSION, v3
- From: cperdue@Sun.COM (Cris Perdue)
- Date: Wed, 4 Jan 89 11:04:46 PST
- Cc: IIM@ecla.usc.edu, firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Is there a way to make COMPILER-LET work correctly short of requiring
> > that interpreters do a macroexpansion prepass? Right now, I can't use
> > COMPILER-LET in portable code because some macroexpansions happen after
> > the dynamic extent of the COMPILER-LET bindings has ended.
> This issue once included a proposal called CLARIFY-STATUS-QUO, . . .
Here is an interesting test case for would-be implementations of
compiler-let or something resembling it:
(compiler-let ((*switch* t))
#'(lambda (x) (my-macro))))
where my-macro's expansion depends on *switch*.