[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
The Noncontroversial Ten Proposals
- To: "common-lisp" <common-lisp@su-ai.ARPA>
- Subject: The Noncontroversial Ten Proposals
- From: "BACH::GREEK" <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1986 16:25:00 -0000
- Reply-to: "BACH::GREEK" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I think it should take another optional that says whether
declarations are allowed. This just makes it more general.
If it has to expand a macro to check for declarations and
finds that the expansion does NOT contain a declaration,
does it return the body with or without the first form
How about returning two lists of declarations: those for
specials and all others? This could be used by the
interpreter. Is it worth the extra time?
I think the values should be returned in logical order:
declarations, doc-string, body.
What happened to our discussion of programs which modify constants?
I believe we agreed that was an error. Or was it too controversial?
How about a LET, FLET, or LABELS which defines the same name more