Subject: Re: Storing macro dependencies in the in-memory function object (was Re: When to recompile/reeval?) From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 22 Oct 2002 17:27:12 +0000 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * Tim Bradshaw | It annoys me that so many of them so nearly provide it but don't quite | manage (for instance: a who-calls which understands macros, and source | location recording, which all the professional systems have I think, is | nearly enough to make it be the case that redefining a macro will go and | recompile all the code that uses it, recursively... I have just tried to make Allegro CL report information on a macro-to-be- compiled such that it would advise the functions that had used a compiled version of same to recompile themselves the next time they were called, advise that would obviously be overridden if the function was compiled along with the new macro. The experiment failed spectacularly (the lisp image died!) and will result in a bug report if I can convince myself that it was not a dumb thing to do. But I somehow think it should have worked. -- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.