[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Macros -> declarations

To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Subject: Macros -> declarations
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 07 May 1985 01:56:00 -0000
Cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
In-reply-to: Msg of 6 May 1985 20:41-EDT from Kent M Pitman <KMP at SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Sender: FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA

The business about wanting to be able to shadow LISP:DECLARE seems
pretty weak to me.  It seems reasonable to me that if people want to
redefine the essential structural symbols like DECLARE out from under
Common Lisp, then they should either be willing to say something like
LISP:DECLARE to get the old version or do a source-level transformation
on the surrounding form.  There are a number of other structural
symbols, in addition to DECLARE, that are known to the interpreter, and
we can't very well macroexpand everything in sight in order to see if we
have one of these.

-- Scott

Follow-Ups:
- Macros -> declarations
  - From: Bernard S. Greenberg <BSG@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

Prev by Date: Re: SETF (APPLY
Next by Date: Macros -> declarations
Previous by thread: Macros -> declarations
Next by thread: Macros -> declarations
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread