[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: MMcM@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA, gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
- Subject: TRUE, FALSE
- From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86 10:34 EST
- Cc: Common-Lisp@SU-AI.ARPA, gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
- In-reply-to: <860311200354.4.MMCM@OWL.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 86 20:03 EST
From: Mike McMahon <MMcM@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Guy's proposed function cannot be used with special forms (macros) that
take something to be "evaluated in the function context", such as for
example the :print-function option to defstruct. My experience shows
TRUE and FALSE ideally suited for such applications.
[I am now putting on my SCHEME hat.] This is merely another example of
how awkward it is to have distinguished "function contexts" and "value
contexts" when using functionals.
I agree now that TRUE and FALSE may be better suited to the Common lisp
style than CONSTFN (but that style is sometimes awkward).
- TRUE, FALSE
- From: Mike McMahon <MMcM@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>