[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue WITH-COMPILATION-UNIT
- To: "Kim A. Barrett" <IIM%ECLA@ECLC.USC.EDU>
- Subject: Re: Issue WITH-COMPILATION-UNIT
- From: David N Gray <Gray@DSG.csc.ti.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Mar 89 12:13:08 CST
- Cc: kmp@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA, cl-compiler@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: Msg of Sat 18 Feb 89 19:17:10-PST from Kim A. Barrett <IIM%ECLA@ECLC.USC.EDU>
- Sender: GRAY@Kelvin.csc.ti.com
> What I'd like is to make the syntax of the macro be something like
> WITH-COMPILATION-UNIT var &body body
> and add something like the following to it description
> The body is processed with var bound to a compile-time environment. The
> extent of the environment is the dynamic extent of the form. This extent also
> applies to any environments made from it (directly or indirectly) by
> AUGMENT-ENVIRONMENT (see Issue SEMANTIC-ENVIRONMENT-ACCESS).
This is an interesting idea, but I am afraid it is mixing two things
that don't necessarily go together. In the Lisp Machine's MAKE-SYSTEM,
the environment for compile-time definitions is for each individual
file, while the warnings context includes all of the files.
> COMPILE-FILE needs a :environment argument.
Yes, if we have AUGMENT-ENVIRONMENT, then users might want to be able to
compile within an environment of macro definitions that they
constructed. It should be easy to permit this, although it might not be
so easy to specify the limitations on how to use it properly.