[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Basic Design Questions: function cells
- To: "Eric J. Swenson" <Swenson@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA>
- Subject: Basic Design Questions: function cells
- From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1986 20:30:00 -0000
- Cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- In-reply-to: Msg of 20 Feb 1986 09:46-EST from Eric J. Swenson <Swenson at CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA>
- Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
I've gotten several responses (off the record, it appears since they
were not cc'ed to the common-lisp mailing list) which appear to confirm
my feeling that the two-cell approach in considered to be very ugly and
that this decision must have been based on maintaining compatibility
with existing renditions of Lisp.
I can't very well argue with your anonymous friends, but in my opinion a
Lisp that stores function definitions in value cells is not as good for
serious programming as one that has two distinct name spaces. As I said
before, this was not just a compatibility issue, at least for some of us.
Another topic, which along similar
veins, appears to hold a consensus is that the multitude of functions
within CL which "only work for global (special) variables and not for
lexically bound variables" and vice-versa is also clumsy in appearance.
Would someone care to explain why it was necessary to devise two-sets of
functions for what (being rather naive, I would think) could have been
combined into one more consistent set?
I have no idea what you're talking about. The only such function I can
think of is PROGV, and that couldn't work for lexical variables.
Gee, I'm sounding almost as grumpy as Moon today...