Re: compiler-let

[shebs%utah-orion@utah-cs.arpa (Stanley Shebs)]

In article <860707151336.1.JAR@ROCKY-GRAZIANO.LCS.MIT.EDU> JAR@MIT-AI.ARPA (Jonathan A Rees) writes:

>COMPILER-LET seems pretty confused;

Hear, hear!

>Of course, the fact that COMPILER-LET has different meanings in
>"interpreted" and "compiled" code is in conflict with th "consistency"
>statement on page 2.  If COMPILER-LET is to be made meaningful, a
>precise distinction between the interpreted language and the compiled
>language must be made somewhere, and this is something I haven't seen so
>far.

Since interpreter/compiler/strange evaluator consistency is one of the
few things that almost everybody agrees is good about Common Lisp,
it should take precedence over anything that would damage this;
COMPILER-LET should be flushed, and EVAL-WHEN, and I wouldn't mind
some constraints on macros in general, although there's not much
prospect for that...

>I'm surprised that people writing code-walkers haven't complained about
>COMPILER-LET before (sorry if you have and I've forgotten).

For PCLS we took advantage of subsetness and totally ignored COMPILER-LET,
since nobody could figure out what it was really for or how a user could
use it in correct code.

								stan