[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proposal LOAD-TIME-EVAL:REVISED-NEW-SPECIAL-FORM
- To: Jon L White <jonl@LUCID.COM>
- Subject: Re: proposal LOAD-TIME-EVAL:REVISED-NEW-SPECIAL-FORM
- From: David N Gray <Gray@DSG.csc.ti.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 88 10:02:06 CDT
- Cc: sandra%defun@CS.UTAH.EDU, cl-compiler@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: Msg of Mon, 26 Sep 88 21:52:09 PDT from Jon L White <jonl@LUCID.COM>
- Sender: GRAY@Kelvin.csc.ti.com
> [By the way, shouldn't the Interlisp
> precedent bias us towards the name LOAD-TIME-CONSTANT rather than towards
That's LOAD-TIME-VALUE; we don't want the word "constant" in it because
they aren't really constants.
> However, a more serious issue seems to have gotten lost in all the flaming.
> At Lucid, we all seem to favor flushing #,. Who really wants it?
I do for one. We are using an equivalent of LOAD-TIME-VALUE in our
implementation of CLOS, and I see no reason to not make that feature
available to users.
> There is a serious flaw in the design of #, and for this reason alone
> it should be flushed
The problem that you describe seems to be an argument against proposal
LOAD-TIME-EVAL:QUOTED-MAGIC-TOKEN and in favor of proposal
LOAD-TIME-EVAL:REVISED-NEW-SPECIAL-FORM, since I believe that the latter
proposal corrects your problem.
> burden of _proof_ to show that any reasonable program is seriously
> hampered without it is on those who invoke the argument.
I thought that Pitman already did a good job of showing why #, is needed.
-- David Gray