Commit af8ea524 authored by Philipp Marek's avatar Philipp Marek

Comments

parent 187840b7
......@@ -12,6 +12,12 @@ Some of the functionality useful for code walkers has been described in the
second edition of «Common Lisp: the Language» as included in the standard, but
later removed.
// Comment PM: Which features would we actually want? Is that about
providing better LOOP and ITERATE, for better macro debugging, ...?
What do implementations already provide here? Could we get by with some
TRIVIAL-WALKABILITY library and very small patches to the implementations?
This document defines three sets of requirements, CDR-NN-a, CDR-NN-b, and
CDR-NN-b. The first set of requirements is intended to be easy to implement and
maintain. The goal is to provide easy and uniform detection and use of the
......@@ -53,8 +59,8 @@ like defmacro does as described in CLtL2.
ENCLOSE — this symbol names a function for processing an anonymous function
definition in a (compile-time) lexical environment as described in CLtL2.
BLOCK-INFORMATION — this symbol names a function that accepts a block name and
an optional environment, and returns :BLOCK if blocks are tracked in the
BLOCK-INFORMATION — this symbol names a function that accepts a block name and // Comment PM: what about (BLOCK NIL ...)?
an optional environment, and returns :BLOCK if blocks are tracked in the // We need two return values.
environment object and a block with the provided name is listed, and NIL
otherwise.
......@@ -150,3 +156,7 @@ Either WITH-AUGMENTED-ENVIRONMENT or AUGMENT-ENVIRONMENT.
ENVIRONMENT-ENTRY-NAMES.
PARSE-MACRO.
LEXICAL-ENVIRONMENT.
// Comment PM: Why do we define various levels (-a, -b, -c) if the things
in them are declared as "SHALL"? IMO that means that every implementation
conforming to -a already conforms to -c as well.
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment