3 ms·
Re footnote 4: the Alexandria library has a function 'parse-body' that will be helpful. Also: I'm not sure it's a good idea to give these macros the same names
by ScottBurson 12y ago
Re footnote 4: the Alexandria library has a function 'parse-body' that will be helpful.
Also: I'm not sure it's a good idea to give these macros the same names as the CL builtins. This will require users to do 'shadowing-import' if they want to use them without the package prefix, and then when they want to reference the builtins (in performance-sensitive code, perhaps) they'll have to use an explicit 'cl:'. At the very least, I'd suggest exporting a second set of names also, which are prefixed with "p-" or some such, so people can import them without shadowing.
- lispm 12y agoPackage PCL for old people means 'Portable Common LOOPS', the first CLOS implementation... ;-)
- chaitanya 12y ago> Re footnote 4: the Alexandria library has a function 'parse-body' that will be helpful. That's nice. I had initially defined LET/LET* using a similar function, but then removed it to keep the macro definitions simpler. > Also: I'm not sure it's a good idea to give these macros the same names as the CL builtins. I gave this some thought, and came to the conclusion that using P-LET* is not very different from using PCL:LET*. So the way I envisioned this is that you don't import symbols from the PCL package; just use them with the package prefix. Though not everyone would prefer things this way, so if this was not a toy project I might have done what you suggested.