[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Questions about specification and possible implementations
- To: Wholeyfirstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Questions about specification and possible implementations
- From: JonL.email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 1984 21:54:00 -0000
- Cc: PERDUEfirstname.lastname@example.org, Commonemail@example.com
- In-reply-to: Skef Wholey <Wholey%cmu-cs-c.arpa@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>'s message of Tue, 9 Oct 84 17:11 EDT
Skef, I see a more serious problem with TRACE than can be encompassed by
Basically, it's still the same question raised by Hedrick initially --
when is it permissible for the compiler to *rename* functions out from
underneath you. The "you" in the preceeding sentence is not merely the
small module of functions that some programmer happens to be working on
at a given point in time. If he so foolishly wants to trace CAR (or
keyword function, or whatever), *** he may just as likely want it traced
in the system functions which use it, or in the funcitons from an
independently supplied module.
I'm not fond of constraining every function in the book -- CAR, CDR and
SVREF come to mind as outrageous to be so constrained. But I do "buy"
Hedricks argument about keyword-admitting and other such functions
[e.g., it would not be legit to rename LDB into SI:**LOAD-BYTE simply in
order to avoid the creation of a byte pointer].
-- JonL --