[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gcl-devel] Re: crummy lisps
From: |
Camm Maguire |
Subject: |
[Gcl-devel] Re: crummy lisps |
Date: |
09 Aug 2005 00:58:36 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 |
Greetings! This is my understanding too, and general goal that the
compiler should follow. Whether we achieve this is of course another
matter entirely, especially as most everyone runs at safety 0 leaving
safety 3 with little feedback.
Take care,
Robert Boyer <address@hidden> writes:
> I should add the following.
>
> I think it is generally accepted rule of thumb in the Common Lisp community
> that if you compile and execute with SAFETY = 3, then your Lisp job will not
> die some horrible death (e.g., with a segmentation violation) because someone
> did an RPLACA or a SETF-AREF on some garbage, and thereby randomly zapped
> memory. Another way of thinking about this is that at SAFETY = 3, life is
> almost as nice as it always was on a Lisp machine.
>
> I do not think that the ANSI standard in any way requires this "rule of
> thumb". Maybe it should. Maybe the authors thought it did. But I can't
> find it in writing and would happy if you told me where to look.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
--
Camm Maguire address@hidden
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah
- [Gcl-devel] Re: crummy lisps,
Camm Maguire <=