[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
What #+rmhackery a good idea #-rmhackery utter nonsense
Date: 14 Jun 85 15:03 PDT
The #+rmhackery feature #-rmhackery lossage of "#+" and "#-" is one of
the more dubious in GSSB. Expanding it with #+(good-ideap ':rmhackery)
the obvious extension #-(good-ideap ':rmhackery) the awful extension of
allowing arbitrary expressions in the feature-forms removes any hope of
being able to do anything with a file of code than #+(good-ideap
':rmhackery) allows the natural extension to more complex situations
#-(good-ideap ':rmhackery) load it.
I'm not sure what you mean. Anyway, in our implementation, #+ and #-
does a READ with *package* bound to the keyword package as well as
turning off #. (see below). It then uses STRING-EQUAL as the comparison
function with the symbols (presumed, but not forced [I think] to be
keywords) in *FEATURES* for the appropriate tokens (e.g., :LISPM and
:NIL are the appropriate tokens of #+(or LispM NIL)). We've had this
for years and it doesn't seem to have any problems.
What happened to the natural constructs
(IF (STRING= (SOFTWARE-TYPE) "VMS") <YESVMS> <NOVMS>)
It doesn't allow
... 20 pages of LispM specific code ...
... 20 pages of generic CL code ...
One could even imagine (whoa) a compiler that would expand
(SOFTWARE-TYPE) into a constant, and evaluate STRING= at compile time if
the args were constant (!)
Our compiler would do this today if somebody put STRING= in the list of
functions to apply constant folding to.
Of course, there's always
#+#.(STRING= (SOFTWARE-TYPE) "VMS").
Says who? In our implementation, #. is turned off while reading #+ or
#-. Suppose I shipped some code that said
#-LispM #.(error nil "This code hasn't been made to run on non-LispMs yet.")
Perhaps a better example would be building machine dependent data
structures inside #+ or #-:
(defun hairy-thing ()