[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: WITH-COMPILATION-UNIT (Version 1)
- To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com>
- Subject: Re: Issue: WITH-COMPILATION-UNIT (Version 1)
- From: email@example.com (Sandra J Loosemore)
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 88 19:28:25 MDT
- Cc: CL-Compiler@sail.stanford.edu, KMP@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com
- In-reply-to: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>, Thu, 29 Sep 88 18:11 EDT
This issue strikes me as a special case of "block compilation" across
multiple files. As an alternative to introducing a new construct,
couldn't we just extend COMPILE-FILE to take a list of files (instead
of a single pathname) as an argument?
A specific comment about the wording of the proposal: the description
of the "actions" that are performed at the end of compilation is much
too vague. For instance, my implementation of COMPILE-FILE writes out
out the binary file and closes its stream at the end of compilation. :-)
In general, the issue as presented does not strike me as being
particularly critical. I don't know anybody who gets really upset
about the compiler printing out messages at various stages along the
way, or expects to see exactly the same messages from every compiler.
On the other hand, if the proposal were reworked to address more general
block compilation issues, I think it would be worthwhile to pursue.