On 04/22/2014 08:06 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> And if you insist on doing it this way, you can wrap the cl-defstruct
> within an eval-and-compile.
> 
> The problem with relying on CL semantics, is that it means that your
> iface-declare will only work at top-level, e.g. not within a `cl-letf'
> or a `cl-flet' or ...
> a
> So while the current semantics bites you, CL's semantics will also bite
> you in other cases.  IOW They just try to avoid biting you in a couple
> more cases, but they can't avoid the fundamental problem.
>
> The above example doesn't convince me yet that the convenience of hiding
> the fundamental problem in those few cases is worth the trouble.
>
> Maybe to solve this problem right, we'd need to do it in
> macroexpand-all: detect a "defmacro" and add the corresponding macro to
> macroexpand-all-environment for the rest of the expansion.  Not sure
> it'd be worth the trouble, but at least it would fix this "toplevel
> special case".

That's fine too, provided we handle the toplevel case correctly. Would
you accept a change that did that?