On 2/26/10 Feb 26 -10:17 AM, james anderson wrote: > good evening; > > as an aside, in light of these changes. > > ? is there some reason that they are not coded to expand at compile > time into a second phase of operations in terms of strings. > that two-phase method gets the symbols out of the image earlier as > they're not needed in fasls. as a side-effect, #: idiom would not be > necessary.
I suspect that this may be necessary in order to make this work on ACL in "modern," case-sensitive mode. Using the symbol-name of an uninterned symbol is usually the way I code for portability across mlisp and other lisps. Note that you can't reliably just do this at compile-time, since you can toggle the case mode in ACL. best, r > > ? in terms of self-documentation the "ensure-" terms are unhappy. in > several cases the semantics is "-exactly" or "-only" rather than > "ensure-". > > On 2010-02-26, at 16:17 , Robert Goldman wrote: > >> On 2/26/10 Feb 26 -9:00 AM, David McClain wrote: >>> [...] >> >> [...] > ... > > > _______________________________________________ > asdf-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
