Re: Hacking on CLISP backquote again: 5 years later.

[Sam S. <sd...@gn...>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Kaz Kylheku wrote:
| On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Sam Steingold <sd...@gn...> wrote:
|> When (foo) and (funcall (compile 'foo)) return visibly different
|> objects, people stop trusting the compiler.
|
| [1]> (defun foo () (lambda ()))
| FOO
| [2]> (foo)
| #<FUNCTION :LAMBDA NIL>
|
| [3]> (compile 'foo)
| FOO ;
| NIL ;
| NIL
| [4]> (foo)
| #<COMPILED-FUNCTION FOO-1>

yes, but these objects are "functionally identical" even though they
print somewhat differently.
the only way to distinguish between them is with a specific predicate
like compiled-function-p, they are the same too all other functions,
including, say, disassemble.

what you are proposing is that the return values are substantially
different lists, and the difference is observable via simple
introspection like cadadr.

Based on this discussion, I think that the improvement is marginal at
best, but potential pitfalls are huge (to say nothing about the
maintenance burden).

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHvcf5Pp1Qsf2qnMcRAvNVAJ0RHztG2WQsZ28iZ+l5pRZeAYzQwQCfVmd0
/s1Ocx9oiD/6a5IUPOPyies=
=bh8a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----