Martin Cracauer writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 01:12:26PM -0600: > > > > I'm not! :-) and IT'S NOT MY CODE! I'm porting someone else's code > > from Allegro to CMUCL. Otherwise I would have rewritten it a bunch. > > Should my lexical environment be caught or killed, I will disavow any > > knowledge of this macro. > > > > Seriously, I'm trying to port this as part of a consulting job, and > > thus want to make as few changes to the source as possible; if I make > > too many, I'll cause a code fork, and all kinds of unpleasant > > professional ramifications. I'm supposed to be making these folks' > > jobs easier, not imposing all kinds of code rewrite! > > The code, when compiled under Allegro, ends up with an additional > useless pointer indirection going after the fdefinition through the > symbol. So it is arguable the correct solution is also better > (faster) when running under Allegro.
I understand. Note that I wasn't disagreeing with fixing the bug (i.e., properly quoting the function argument). What I was disagreeing with was the recommendations for code rewrite (changing the alist to be a proper alist of cons cells instead of a list of lists, destructively modifying the assoc cell, etc.) that would have had ripple effects (especially redesigning all the alists). And I was being (more than) a little defensive about the implication that I had written the code in question (which I hadn't). For the record, I'm very grateful to the three of you who put me straight about quoting the function arguments. Cheers, Robert
