Re: Staus of proposals 10, 11, and 12

[dcp@TENEX.SCRC.Symbolics.COM]

    Date: 29 Jul 1986 21:47-EDT
    From: NGALL@G.BBN.COM

	
	Date: Tue, 29 Jul 86 11:50 EDT
	From: David C. Plummer <DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
    
	I may have thought of one usage:
		(macrolet ((print-them (list)
			     `(mapc #'print ,list)))
		  (declare (notinline mapc))
		  ...)
	If anybody else believes this, perhaps it should be one of the examples?

    I don't believe it.  The stuff inside the backquoted list is not code,
    it is data.  Here's a similar one that I believe:
    (macrolet ((print-them (list)
		 `(progn ,@(mapcar #'(lambda (item) `(print ',item))
				   list)))
      (declare (notinline mapcar))
      ...)
    In this, the mapcar funcall form IS code.  
You misunderstand.  Declarations have a scoping for code that it sees.
My intention was that anybody who calls (print-them some-list) expands into
	(mapc #'print some-list)
and that the declaration forces MAPC to be open coded.  Your definition
has two differences from mine:  (1) Your declaration tries to affect the
expansion PROCESS (mine affects the processing of the expansion), and
(2) your contract is different than mine (mine takes a runtime list,
your's takes a compile time list).  To get (1), I claim your declaration
is in the wrong place.  It should have been 
    (macrolet ((print-them (list)
		 (declare (notinline mapcar))
		 `(progn ,@(mapcar #'(lambda (item) `(print ',item))
				   list))))
      ...)

					       Note that this still is not
    a strong argument for decls in the body of a macrolet, since the decl
    could have been put in the body of the print-them macro definition.
"must" not "could"
    But I agree that we should allow decls in the body of a macrolet.