Proposal #9 Status: Variable Name Conflicts

[System Files <SYS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>]

Received: from SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Jul 86  11:46:30 PDT
Received: from FIREBIRD.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 24588; Mon 28-Jul-86 11:52:07 EDT
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 86 11:52 EDT
From: David C. Plummer <DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: Proposal #9 Status: Variable Name Conflicts
To: Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>, common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12226156362.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-ID: <860728115240.4.DCP@FIREBIRD.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

Doing the multiple variable name check for PROGV would require an N^2
check at runtime instead of compile time.  Consider as an extreme
	(multiple-value-bind (vars1 vals1)
	    (get-some-vars-and-vals)
	  (multiple-value-bind (vars2 vals2)
	      (get-some-more-vars-and-vals-that-can-override)
	    (progv (append vars1 vars2)
		   (append vals1 vals1)
		   ...implicit-progn...)))
One could counter argue that I should be using two PROGVs.  I will
counter-counter it probably shouldn't make an iota of difference.

ps: I only recently read the mail about etiquette.

pps: Some context is needed.  There was one message about DEFCONSTANT
saying everybody agreed.  Since I don't have the proposals tacked to my
wall, I could barely remember what it was we were all agreeing about.
It also took a while to recache what Proposal #9 was all about.