[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issues DECLARATION-SCOPE and DEFINING-MACROS-NON-TOP-LEVEL
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Issues DECLARATION-SCOPE and DEFINING-MACROS-NON-TOP-LEVEL
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 89 17:43 EST
- Cc: Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <8901231952.AA18930@defun.utah.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 89 12:52:50 MST
From: email@example.com (Sandra J Loosemore)
> Assuming the vote on DECLARATION-SCOPE is not likely to be reversed, I
> think DEFINING-MACROS-NON-TOP-LEVEL needs to be modified to treat the
> body of LOCALLY as top-level. If this requires changing LOCALLY from a
> macro to a special form, so be it.
I don't think that adding LOCALLY to the list of forms that must pass
top-level-ness through would be a problem. I don't see any great need
to change it to be a special form, either. ...
If you don't make it a special form, then MACROEXPAND can change its semantics.
[eg, if LOCALLY expands into LET, but LET is not something that works at toplevel.]
Currently, I don't think that's permitted -- MACROEXPAND is normally a
semantics-preserving operation. I think Moon is right that adding LOCALLY to
that list would seem to require that it be implemented as a special form.