[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: cl-compiler@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: Issue SYNTACTIC-ENVIRONMENT-ACCESS
- From: Kim A. Barrett <IIM@ECLA.USC.EDU>
- Date: Tue 28 Feb 89 13:39:26-PST
- Cc: iim@ECLA.USC.EDU
> I contend that anything that needs to know whether the code is being
> processed by the interpreter or compiler ought to be a special form (this
> includes EVAL-WHEN and whatever we decide to do about LOAD-TIME-EVAL) and
> should be left strictly alone by code walkers.
I don't agree with this. There are occasionally times when I (at least) want
to write a macro which does something different depending on whether it is
interpreted or compiled. In general they have the same meaning, the difference
often being in how much work the macro is willing to go to in order to produce
a 'good' expansion.
This is not to say that I disagree with the idea of replacing
ENVIRONMENT-TARGET with ENVIRONMENT-REMOTE-P. In fact, now that I've seen the
arguments, I agree thats the right thing.
The problem I have is that I may be left with no way to do what I want, because
we are removing the COMPILE bit from here, and the GENERALIZE-EVAL proposal for
EVAL-WHEN-NON-TOP-LEVEL seems to be removing it from EVAL-WHEN as well (which
is the other obvious mechanism for producing such a distinction).