[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Clarification of full funarging and spaghetti stacks
- To: Daniel L. Weinreb <dlw at SCRC-TENEX at MIT-MC>
- Subject: Re: Clarification of full funarging and spaghetti stacks
- From: JonL at PARC-MAXC
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1982 00:09:00 -0000
- Cc: MOON at SCRC-TENEX at MIT-MC, common-lisp at SU-AI
- In-reply-to: dlw at SCRC-TENEX's message of Tuesday, 7 September 1982, 16:57-EDT
Apologies again for being a week behind in mail (I'm trying hard to
catch up!). This issue of "funarging and spaghetti stacks" came up
in the context of some *private* mail I had sent to Moon, hoping to
get his view of the matter first (unfortunately, the mailer here loused
up the "at SCRC-TENEX" part, and he didn't get the mail).
Date: 3 Sep 1982 17:59 PDT
From: JonL at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: a protest
In-reply-to: MOON's message of Tuesday, 31 August 1982 17:38-EDT
To: MOON at SCRC-TENEX
. . .
GLS has already replied to this one, with cc to CommonLisp, and I'm still
not sure if there is a consensus (or even a clear understanding of terms).
Part of the confusion may be due to the new terminology in the CL
manual (admittedly, good terminology, but still new to lispers). Anyway,
it *appears* that the meaning of "funargs" in this context implies potential
stack-frame retention; I think it was concern over this point ("full funargs"
with indefinite scope) that brought up the discussion over a point which may
be called "PROG label retention" (the indefinite extension of a dynamic "GO",
I like the idea of CLOSUREs having indefinite extent, and also being able to
"capture" selected special variables, as in the current LISPM. I don't like the
idea of all environment being "closed over", which implies spaghetti.