- "If NAME names a compiler-macro, returns the expansion function,
- else returns NIL. Note: if the name is shadowed in ENV by a local
- definition, or declared NOTINLINE, NIL is returned. Can be
- set with SETF."
- (let ((found (and env
- (cdr (assoc name (sb!c::lexenv-functions env)
- :test #'equal)))))
- (unless (eq (cond ((sb!c::defined-function-p found)
- (sb!c::defined-function-inlinep found))
- (found :notinline)
- (t
- (info :function :inlinep name)))
- :notinline)
- (values (info :function :compiler-macro-function name)))))
-(defun (setf sb!xc:compiler-macro-function) (function name)
+ "If NAME names a compiler-macro in ENV, return the expansion function, else
+return NIL. Can be set with SETF when ENV is NIL."
+ (legal-fun-name-or-type-error name)
+ ;; CLHS 3.2.2.1: Creating a lexical binding for the function name
+ ;; not only creates a new local function or macro definition, but
+ ;; also shadows[2] the compiler macro.
+ (unless (fun-locally-defined-p name env)
+ ;; Note: CMU CL used to return NIL here when a NOTINLINE
+ ;; declaration was in force. That's fairly logical, given the
+ ;; specified effect of NOTINLINE declarations on compiler-macro
+ ;; expansion. However, (1) it doesn't seem to be consistent with
+ ;; the ANSI spec for COMPILER-MACRO-FUNCTION, and (2) it would
+ ;; give surprising behavior for (SETF (COMPILER-MACRO-FUNCTION
+ ;; FOO) ...) in the presence of a (PROCLAIM '(NOTINLINE FOO)). So
+ ;; we don't do it.
+ (values (info :function :compiler-macro-function name))))
+
+(defun (setf sb!xc:compiler-macro-function) (function name &optional env)