[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issues DECLARATION-SCOPE and DEFINING-MACROS-NON-TOP-LEVEL
- To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: Re: Issues DECLARATION-SCOPE and DEFINING-MACROS-NON-TOP-LEVEL
- From: David N Gray <Gray@DSG.csc.ti.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 89 10:48:57 CST
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: Msg of Mon, 23 Jan 89 17:43 EST from Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Sender: GRAY@Kelvin.csc.ti.com
> 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.
An alternative would be to say that LET passes through "top-level-ness" when
its binding list is NIL.