Peter TB Brett <pe...@peter-b.co.uk> writes: > It seems pretty clear to me that the only (debatable) downside to > using Mark's implementation is that some definitions end up in the > "wrong" module, while your implementation has several potentially > *major* problems (including the necessity of providing universally > unique gensyms) which Mark has managed to avoid.
Let me just repeat that I consider universally unique gensyms a recipe for trouble. Having a compiler _depend_ on creating unreproducible output is going to be in the "not really fun" category for a _lot_ of things. I don't have much of a clue about the other differences. But this one _really_ comes at a dear price in its implications. -- David Kastrup
