Re: COMPILER-LET

[John Diamant <diamant@hpfclp.sde.hp.com>]

> From: sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu (Sandra J Loosemore)
> Reasons for flushing COMPILER-LET include:
> 
> * COMPILER-LET is ugly and confusing.  The dynamic extent of the variable
>   bindings in interpreted code can lead to subtle bugs.  In compiled code,
>   the variable bindings are only visible to macros within the lexical scope
>   of the COMPILER-LET.

In addition, both the original text in CLtL and this description make
assumptions about the evaluation strategy employed by the implementation (they
assume a conventional interpreter, which is explicitly not required by
CLtL.  In a preprocessor or compile always implementation, this special
form and description make no sense at all.  Flush it, and good riddance.

John Diamant
Software Development Environments
Hewlett-Packard Co.		ARPA Internet: diamant@hpfclp.sde.hp.com
Fort Collins, CO		UUCP:  {hplabs,hpfcla}!hpfclp!diamant