On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, William Harold Newman wrote: > On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 09:23:08AM -0800, Tim Moore wrote:
> > > > implementation has a lot of latitude to return anything it wants as > > > > long as it gives the proper results at run time. Even Common Lisp > > > > compilers like SBCL load their own backquote implementations into the > > > > host Lisp so they know what's going on. As your language departs from > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > CL it gets even harder. > > When you write SBCL replaces backquote "so they know what's going on", > it sounds as though this replacement is something that cautious > authors of other programs might reasonably choose to do, also. NotIMO. > While SBCL does have a good reason to do this, it's not (as far as I > can remember anyway:-) just so that we know what's going on, and it > doesn't mean it's a reasonable thing to do in general. Note that we're not talking about just any program, but a compiler-like program. The source language is not necessarilly Common Lisp like. As I Understand It. > We may do some things that more programs should imitate, but I don't > think redefining backquote is one of them.:-) Agreed, but I think Jon's program is one of those special cases. Tim
