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

New special form suggestion: LET-CONSTANT

To: labrea!barmar%Think.COM@labrea.stanford.edu
Subject: New special form suggestion: LET-CONSTANT
From: edsel!kent-state!eb@labrea.stanford.edu (Eric Benson)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 87 12:05:52 PDT
Cc: labrea!common-lisp%sail.stanford.edu@labrea.stanford.edu
In-reply-to: Barry Margolin's message of Mon, 3 Aug 87 12:07 EDT <870803120736.7.BARMAR@NIETZSCHE.THINK.COM>

There's actually no need for a declaration or special form.  LET will
do fine all by itself.  If the expression to which the variable is
bound is constant and there are no SETQs to the variable, all
references to the variable may be legitimately replaced by the
constant expression.  This is a very common optimization in Lisp
compilers.  However, as far as I know it is not done by the Symbolics
compiler.

Follow-Ups:
- New special form suggestion: LET-CONSTANT
  - From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- New special form suggestion: LET-CONSTANT
  - From: Barry Margolin <barmar@Think.COM>

References:
- New special form suggestion: LET-CONSTANT
  - From: Barry Margolin <barmar@Think.COM>

Prev by Date: Question on function type spec and lambda-list keywords
Next by Date: LET-CONSTANT and DECLARE (CONSTANT
Previous by thread: Re: New special form suggestion: LET-CONSTANT
Next by thread: New special form suggestion: LET-CONSTANT
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread