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

Re: function specs

Not only do I like SEF's suggestion (use the SETF syntax instead of
introducing a whole new syntax for function specs), but it seems to
resolve two important issues:
  1) Symbols should be used as names, not other datatypes
  2) There must be a uniform way to cause a defined function to be stored
    at any reasonably accessible location, regardless of whether or not
    that function "has" a name

A key word in point 2 is "store".  Thus, use SETF syntax, inventing new
accessor functions where necessary.

It's a defect if there are "locations" of relevance in compiled code which
the user can't access.  Thus if some anonymous lambda expression causes 
an internally-generated function,  *and there is some need to "get hold"
of it after compilation*, then there should be appropriate accessor functions,
regardless of the function-specs controversy.  Possibly new accessor names
need not be invented, if there can be conventions established for the
storage of compiled code constructs, but this is a lower-level implementation

Also, I feel, it's misguided to throw out symbols as names simply because
of reaction to the uncomfortable wart in MacLisp engendered by
   (DEFUN (FOO BAZZAZ) (X) . . . )