[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gcl-devel] Re: SAFETY for interpreted code
From: |
Camm Maguire |
Subject: |
[Gcl-devel] Re: SAFETY for interpreted code |
Date: |
13 Apr 2006 10:50:23 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 |
Greetings!
Robert Boyer <address@hidden> writes:
> > AFAICT, safety only pertains to compiled.
>
> Strictly speaking, I do not think that claim is perfectly
> accurate for ANSI Common Lisp in general.
>
> I believe SAFETY is always relevant when "processing" LISP
> code because the safety level, which has lexical scope,
> determines in some cases whether errors are signaled. Of
> course, it is always OK for the implementation to act as
> though safety=3. From the ANSI:
>
> Implementations are permitted to treat all code as safe code
> all the time.
>
> Ergo, it is ok for GCL to act this way. And I shall take it
Great! At least one think is OK :-).
> as official GCL policy that when interpreting code, as
> opposed to executing compiled code, GCL always acts as
> though SAFETY=3, regardless of its actual lexical value.
> So, as you say:
>
> > All interpreted code is equivalent to compiled safety 3, AFAICT.
>
> I have not been able to find anything that tells one what
> the official ANSI default SAFETY setting is for the
> read-eval-print loop, compile, or compile-file.
>
Thanks so much for your enlightening inquiry into these things.
Take care,
> Bob
>
>
>
--
Camm Maguire address@hidden
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- [Gcl-devel] Re: SAFETY for interpreted code,
Camm Maguire <=