[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: common-lisp@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: smashed constants
- From: ELIOT@cs.umass.edu
- Date: Tue, 14 Jun 88 13:18 EDT
>From: IN%"Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA" "David A. Moon" 14-JUN-1988 03:46
>Subj: constant folding/smashing
> Date: Fri, 10 Jun 88 11:32 EDT
> From: ELIOT@cs.umass.edu
> (I don't count #.(make-hash-table...) because it's so gross.)
>I object to the characterization of doing something through the normal
>syntax, instead of inventing a special weird syntax that people have
>to learn as a special case, as "gross."
Yes, that was a poor choice of words. But I don't think I am the only
one who considers "escape" constructs like #. to be a technique of last
Still, I think my abstract point holds. QUOTE is a very good way to
construct small and simple data structures, but there are many data
structures that cannot *reasonably* be constructed with it.
So QUOTE can't support a general mechanism for constructing read
only data. If Common Lisp is going to have a notion of read-only,
(for those implementations capable of it) then it would be best to
support a general mechanism for it.
Admittedly I don't know exactly how a general mechanism should be
defined. A straightforward recursive decent copy won't work
on circular data structures.