Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!think!leander.think.com!barmar
From: barmar@leander.think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: LISP compiler?
Message-ID: <31672@news.Think.COM>
Date: 14 Nov 89 02:51:40 GMT
References: <5081@internal.Apple.COM> <5031@tekcrl.LABS.TEK.COM> <Nov.10.13.33.46.1989.3812@bearcat.rutgers.edu> <5140@internal.Apple.COM> <1989Nov10.154943.18376@hellgate.utah.edu> <31645@news.Think.COM> <Nov.13.16.59.55.1989.4053@bearcat.rutgers.edu>
Sender: news@Think.COM
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA
Lines: 22

In article <Nov.13.16.59.55.1989.4053@bearcat.rutgers.edu> lou@bearcat.rutgers.edu (Lou Steinberg) writes:
>In article <31645@news.Think.COM> barmar@leander.think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>> Functions that take functional arguments will accept either a
>> function or a symbol (automatically calling SYMBOL-FUNCTION on the latter);
>> they will no longer take lambda lists.
>You still have to be sure somehow that the user hasn't consed up a
>runtime list and used setf of symbol-definition to store it as the
>definition of some symbol.

Nope, that won't be permitted.  When you do 

	(setf (symbol-function <symbol>) <expression>)

the value of <expression> will have to be a function object; a list will
not be acceptable in portable code.  If <expression> is a list, then you'll
have to do

	(setf (symbol-function <symbol>) (coerce <expression> 'function))
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar