[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM
- Subject: proposal LOAD-TIME-EVAL:REVISED-NEW-SPECIAL-FORM
- From: Jim McDonald <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 88 19:19:01 PDT
- Cc: eb@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, kmp@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM's message of Tue, 20 Sep 88 18:24 PDT <19880921012425.2.GREGOR@PORTNOY.parc.xerox.com>
prefer to remove #, and its functionality altogether from the
language. It just isn't that important. I have yet to see any use for
#, which could not have been achieved by other means.
Sigh. I simply don't believe this claim. ...
But this last statement just isn't true. Here is an example:
Excuse me for being pedantic, but how can either of you claim to know
what EB has seen? If *you* have seen such uses, that's interesting,
but doesn't invalidate his observation, which is (I think) intended to
lend support to the argument that such uses are very rare or
... I could say:
(defun a-little-function (x)
(aref #,(get-table-for 'a-little-function '(x))
But would you, or has anyone? That's the real question. The last
time I looked, there were exactly two uses of #, in Lucid's product--
both to setup something like *software-version* (I forget the exact
details). Surely #, is overkill for such uses.
We can provide lots of efficiency hooks that no one will ever use.
I think the burden of proof here is for someone to show some *real*
examples of where #, is a clear win.