[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: issue CONSTANT-CIRCULAR-COMPILATION, version 4
- To: Jon L White <@sail.stanford.edu:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: issue CONSTANT-CIRCULAR-COMPILATION, version 4
- From: Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
- Date: Wed, 1 Feb 89 13:32:41 GMT
- Cc: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: Jon L White's message of Tue, 31 Jan 89 01:51:53 PST
> unless more than one weirded-out user falls upon it as follows:
> (1) It is a natural case of some money-earning software product, and
> not just another exercise to show how bad someone's compiler is;
> (2) The time saved by a special-case switch to turn off the tabling
> algorithms can be translated into a real dollars-and-cents profit
One of the pragmatist philosophers (James? Dewey?) used to talk about
the "cash value" of things -- i.e., what difference did it make. It's
reasonable to think that way. But it's not so reasonable to insist that
the only thing that matters is "money-earning software". I do not think
that commercial considerations full stop should decide any issue.
That said, however:
> re: I think any serious implementation of COMPILE-FILE will quietly handle
> circular data, just as any serious garbage collector is expected to.
> Well-said, Jim!
But for me the deciding factor is that I can write circular constants
in source code. I don't like the idea of a language that can't compile
its own source notation. (#. is a pain, but I'm willing to keep it).