[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Proposal #9 Status: Variable Name Conflicts
- Subject: Proposal #9 Status: Variable Name Conflicts
- From: System Files <SYS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1986 15:47:00 -0000
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
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)
(multiple-value-bind (vars2 vals2)
(progv (append vars1 vars2)
(append vals1 vals1)
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.