[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue SYNTACTIC-ENVIRONMENT-ACCESS
- To: "Kim A. Barrett" <IIM@ECLA.USC.EDU>
- Subject: Re: Issue SYNTACTIC-ENVIRONMENT-ACCESS
- From: David N Gray <Gray@DSG.csc.ti.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 89 18:17:10 CST
- Cc: cl-compiler@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: Msg of Tue 28 Feb 89 13:38:19-PST from Kim A. Barrett <IIM@ECLA.USC.EDU>
- Sender: GRAY@Kelvin.csc.ti.com
> > It should be noted that only remote environments have property lists. In my
> > implementation, the real difference between local and remote environments is
> > whether storing into it affects the global environment or is recorded
> > locally. In this proposal, (SETF (ENVIRONMENT-PROPERTY ...) ...) is the only
> > way provided to store into an environment.
> There is no intent to require property lists in the implementation, merely that
> there exists this function which behaves as if there were property lists
> underlying it.
Right; I was intending "property list" in the conceptual sense, rather
than as an implementation representation. The point is that
(SETF (ENVIRONMENT-PROPERTY ...) ...) has a global side-effect if the
environment is not a remote environment.