[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
&REST args
- To: Jeff Barnett <jbarnett@nrtc.northrop.com>, goldman@vaxa.isi.edu, common-lisp@sail.stanford.edu
- Subject: &REST args
- From: Charles Hornig <Hornig@ALDERAAN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 17 Mar 88 00:38 EST
- In-reply-to: The message of 16 Mar 88 18:35 EST from Jeff Barnett <jbarnett@nrtc.northrop.com>, <8803162317.AA14565@vaxa.isi.edu>
Yes, declarations would be a good thing if we decide that Common Lisp
permits valid programs to store pointers to or to destructively modify
&REST arguments. If we decide that Common Lisp does not permit it, or
leaves the result undefined (which is another way of saying the same
thing), then there is no need for declarations.
I believe that there is general agreement that one is allowed to save
pointers to &REST arguments. There seems to be no agreement about
destructive modification. I, personally, believe that destructive
modification should be permitted and that the language implementation
must guarantee that this will not currupt structures passed as APPLY
arguments. This guarantee can be done through declarations, code
analysis, or just consing a lot.
- Follow-Ups:
- &REST args
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>