Re: Compiling macros with an optional function parameter?

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 9:06 PM, [email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:
> What I don't understand, though, is why the original macro compiled and
> ran without this problem (it was only during concatenation into a larger
> binary when this error occurred).

In general, dumping a literal function object into a fasl file is not
something you can rely on. See CLHS section 3.2.4.2.2, where it says
for functions that they are "not externalizable objects". That means a
macro should not expand into source code that includes a literal
function object, but instead to its name (as you have found) or e.g. a
lambda form.

Similarly you can't just dump an instance of a class, so a macro
expansion should not include a literal instance, unless there is a
make-load-form method.

- Willem
(resent from address that is subscribed to the list, sorry for any duplicates)