Re: cl-byte-compile-compiler-macro

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>>> When I compile quux.el, does that need CL to be loaded?
>>> (Assume quux.el does not load CL itself.)
>
>>     I think it does, since the accessor function has a byte-compile property
>>     that points to function in cl-macs (cl-byte-compile-compiler-macro).
>
>> I think it should be possible to compile quux.el without loading CL.
>
>> I proposed moving that function and its subroutine to subr.el.
>> Will that achieve the goal?
>
> An alternative solution might be the following which just ignores the
> cl-byte-compile-compiler-macro value unless that function is indeed defined.
> Since compiler-macros are supposed to only provide optimizations but no
> change in semantics, no running them should always be harmless.
> Please install it if you think it's right.

Uh, what?  Am I just confused about the terminology you use?  defmacro
most certainly does not provide optional stuff to the compiler.
defsubst would, but is the result of that called a "compiler macro"
while the result of "defmacro" isn't?

Anyway, I don't even think that a defsubst which might or might not be
executed is a good idea: if the programmer wants to achieve a certain
effect with an optimization, failing to do so should not go unnoticed.

It appears that the current behavior makes it hard to track down the
problem.  I think the solution should be to create better diagnostics
for pinpointing the problem instead of removing them completely.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum