- (mapcar (lambda (x)
- (let ((*package* (delayed-def!struct-package x)))
- ;; KLUDGE(?): EVAL is almost always the wrong thing.
- ;; However, since we have to map DEFSTRUCT over the
- ;; list, and since ANSI declined to specify any
- ;; functional primitives corresponding to the
- ;; DEFSTRUCT macro, it seems to me that EVAL is
- ;; required in there somewhere..
- (eval `(sb!xc:defstruct ,@(delayed-def!struct-args x)))))
- (reverse *delayed-def!structs*))
- ;; We shouldn't need this list any more. Making it unbound
- ;; serves as a signal to DEF!STRUCT that it needn't delay
- ;; DEF!STRUCTs any more. It is also generally a good thing for
- ;; other reasons: it frees garbage, and it discourages anyone
- ;; else from pushing anything else onto the list later.
- (makunbound '*delayed-def!structs*))
+ (mapcar (lambda (x)
+ (let ((*package* (delayed-def!struct-package x)))
+ ;; KLUDGE(?): EVAL is almost always the wrong thing.
+ ;; However, since we have to map DEFSTRUCT over the
+ ;; list, and since ANSI declined to specify any
+ ;; functional primitives corresponding to the
+ ;; DEFSTRUCT macro, it seems to me that EVAL is
+ ;; required in there somewhere..
+ (eval `(sb!xc:defstruct ,@(delayed-def!struct-args x)))))
+ (reverse *delayed-def!structs*))
+ ;; We shouldn't need this list any more. Making it unbound
+ ;; serves as a signal to DEF!STRUCT that it needn't delay
+ ;; DEF!STRUCTs any more. It is also generally a good thing for
+ ;; other reasons: it frees garbage, and it discourages anyone
+ ;; else from pushing anything else onto the list later.
+ (makunbound '*delayed-def!structs*))