[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: DOTTED-MACRO-FORMS (Version 2)
- To: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Subject: Issue: DOTTED-MACRO-FORMS (Version 2)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Sun, 2 Oct 88 22:06 EDT
- Cc: Common-Lisp@sail.stanford.edu, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <881001-144721-2149@Xerox>
I'm pretty neutral on this issue.
I agree Goldman's example is not very compelling. I don't see
any reason not to have done (?? WFF) rather than (?? . WFF).
On the other hand, I think macro forms are "expressions outside
the language" which the macro facility is responsible for
translating to "forms", so I could buy a little flexibility here.
But in the end there's little call for this and I think the
error checking arguments win out.
Then again, disallowing dotted lists will make &REST etc. seem
more like they are in functions. There was a deliberate attempt
to make these very syntactically similar in other ways, and I
think it's worth carrying through on it.
Since I could go for it either way, but I'm quite content with
your decision to present only the DISALLOW option (which I guess
is effectively the same as what I called EXPLICITLY-VAGUE in the
previous writeup ... I guess you've been taking lessons from the
political campaigns on "spin control" ...).