|
From: | Ilya Shlyakhter |
Subject: | Re: CL package suggestion |
Date: | Sun, 8 Apr 2012 21:41:51 -0400 |
Right now, the cl package itself seems to violate the rule against calling its functions at runtime.E.g.(define-compiler-macro assoc* (&whole form a list &rest keys);; ...(if (floatp-safe (cl-const-expr-val a));; ...floatp-safe is a function in package cl, and the compiled code will call it at runtime.Am I missing something?On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote:
> Agree about cl- being better than ecl- .The name is different, so the compiler can definitely tell the difference.
> Btw, if remove-if becomes defalias'ed to cl-remove-if, aren't the two calls
> indistinguishable to the byte compiler?
Not necessarily, no.
> If they are, and calling cl-remove wouldn't trigger a warning,
> wouldn't remove-if calls also become warning-less?
Stefan
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |