Re: Bug report: Loading a FASL into a package which doesn't import SETQ

> On Nov 12, 2020, at 08:02, Robert Munyer <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Thank you for working on these!
> 
> I haven't been able to compile or test your changes, nor to write up
> the latest bug I found ("compile-file not doing minimal compilation
> inside defconstant/defparameter/defvar"), because I've been preparing
> for a not-quite-hurricane.
> 
> But I do have time to answer your question...
> 
>>>>> It's conceivably possible that _all_ of the manipulation of
>>>>> *PACKAGE* that happens during COMPILE-FILE could be removed,
>>>>> because the user is already required to have *PACKAGE* set
>>>>> correctly when invoking LOAD.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't think this is true:  COMPILE-FILE should actually capture
>>>> the current package when COMPILE-FILE is invoked, arranging to have
>>>> this package present when LOAD occurs.  [An example of this][1]
>>>> works on SBCL/CCL but fails on ABCL even with all of your
>>>> suggestions.  Please correct me if you believe this isn't the case.
> 
> This was discussed and voted on as issue COMPILE-FILE-SYMBOL-HANDLING:
> http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Issues/iss063_w.htm
> 
> To see the outcome of that vote in the spec, see the subsection
> labeled "symbol:" in section 3.2.4.4:
> http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/03_bdd.htm
> 
> I haven't looked at your test cases, but some of them may be trying
> to do things that 3.2.4.4 says that programs are not allowed to do,
> and compiler implementors are not expected to support.

Thanks for the reference which I will study.

Good luck with the hurricane, and I’ll see ya on the other side.

yours,
Mark

-- 
"A screaming comes across the sky.  It has happened before but there is nothing 
to compare to it now."