((typep ,place ',type))
(setf ,place (check-type-error ',place ,place ',type ,type-string)))
(let ((value (gensym)))
- `(do ((,value ,place))
+ `(do ((,value ,place ,place))
((typep ,value ',type))
(setf ,place
(check-type-error ',place ,value ',type ,type-string)))))))
#!+sb-doc
"Define a compiler-macro for NAME."
(legal-fun-name-or-type-error name)
- (when (consp name)
- ;; It's fairly clear that the user intends the compiler macro to
- ;; expand when he does (SETF (FOO ...) X). And that's even a
- ;; useful and reasonable thing to want. Unfortunately,
- ;; (SETF (FOO ...) X) macroexpands into (FUNCALL (SETF FOO) X ...),
- ;; and it's not at all clear that it's valid to expand a FUNCALL form,
- ;; and the ANSI standard doesn't seem to say anything else which
- ;; would justify us expanding the compiler macro the way the user
- ;; wants. So instead we rely on 3.2.2.1.3 "When Compiler Macros Are
- ;; Used" which says they never have to be used, so by ignoring such
- ;; macros we're erring on the safe side. But any user who does
- ;; (DEFINE-COMPILER-MACRO (SETF FOO) ...) could easily be surprised
- ;; by this way of complying with a rather screwy aspect of the ANSI
- ;; spec, so at least we can warn him...
- (sb!c::compiler-style-warn
- "defining compiler macro of (SETF ...), which will not be expanded"))
(when (and (symbolp name) (special-operator-p name))
(error 'simple-program-error
:format-control "cannot define a compiler-macro for a special operator: ~S"