[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: compiler-let
- From: email@example.com (Stanley Shebs)
- Date: Mon, 7 Jul 86 17:10:25 MDT
- Apparently-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Newsgroups: fa.common-lisp
- Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
- References: <860707181000.8.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Reply-to: shebs@utah-orion.UUCP (Stanley Shebs)
In article <860707181000.8.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM> DLW@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM (Daniel L. Weinreb) writes:
> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 86 13:45:37 MDT
> From: email@example.com (Stanley Shebs)
> For PCLS we took advantage of subsetness and totally ignored COMPILER-LET,
> since nobody could figure out what it was really for or how a user could
> use it in correct code.
>That's a very good way to make design decisions.
>It's certainly true that CLtL does not explain compiler-let well enough.
>A single example would probably help a great deal.
>For purposes of future manual revisions: what other features did you
>totally ignore for the same reasons?
Methinks there is a tongue pressed into cheek somewhere, but I'll answer
bravely anyway: COMPILER-LET takes honors as the most bogus item in
Common Lisp, with the possible exception of certain format directives
(GLS's example of the FORMAT-ERROR function is an unusually subtle joke -
"looks pretty flashy when done properly"!). PCLS includes FIFTH through
TENTH, but that was because they were so easy that people spent time on
those to avoid working on useful functions. We used to be prejudiced
against MACROLET, but have since been partially convinced of its worth,
and it's likely to appear in the next version of PCLS. There was also
a move afoot to flush CONS because it consed immensely, but everybody's
resigned to keeping it in PCLS...