;;; (This is also what shows up as an ENVIRONMENT value in macroexpansion.)
#!-sb-fluid (declaim (inline internal-make-lexenv)) ; only called in one place
(def!struct (lexenv
- ;; FIXME: should probably be called MAKE-EMPTY-LEXENV or
- ;; MAKE-NULL-LEXENV
(:constructor make-null-lexenv ())
(:constructor internal-make-lexenv
- (functions variables blocks tags type-restrictions
- lambda cleanup policy
- interface-policy options)))
- ;; Alist (NAME . WHAT), where WHAT is either a Functional (a local function),
- ;; a DEFINED-FUNCTION, representing an INLINE/NOTINLINE declaration, or
- ;; a list (MACRO . <function>) (a local macro, with the specifier
- ;; expander.) Note that NAME may be a (SETF <name>) function.
- (functions nil :type list)
+ (funs vars blocks tags type-restrictions
+ lambda cleanup policy options)))
+ ;; an alist of (NAME . WHAT), where WHAT is either a FUNCTIONAL (a
+ ;; local function), a DEFINED-FUN, representing an
+ ;; INLINE/NOTINLINE declaration, or a list (MACRO . <function>) (a
+ ;; local macro, with the specifier expander). Note that NAME may be
+ ;; a (SETF <name>) list, not necessarily a single symbol.
+ (funs nil :type list)
;; an alist translating variable names to LEAF structures. A special
;; binding is indicated by a :SPECIAL GLOBAL-VAR leaf. Each special
;; binding within the code gets a distinct leaf structure, as does
;;
;; If the CDR is (MACRO . <exp>), then <exp> is the expansion of a
;; symbol macro.
- (variables nil :type list)
+ (vars nil :type list)
;; BLOCKS and TAGS are alists from block and go-tag names to 2-lists
;; of the form (<entry> <continuation>), where <continuation> is the
;; continuation to exit to, and <entry> is the corresponding ENTRY node.
;; "pervasive" type declarations. When THING is a leaf, this is for
;; type declarations that pertain to the type in a syntactic extent
;; which does not correspond to a binding of the affected name. When
- ;; Thing is a continuation, this is used to track the innermost THE
+ ;; THING is a continuation, this is used to track the innermost THE
;; type declaration.
(type-restrictions nil :type list)
;; the lexically enclosing lambda, if any
;; to get CLAMBDA defined in time for the cross-compiler.
(lambda nil)
;; the lexically enclosing cleanup, or NIL if none enclosing within Lambda
- ;;
- ;; FIXME: This should be :TYPE (OR CLEANUP NULL), but it was too hard
- ;; to get CLEANUP defined in time for the cross-compiler.
(cleanup nil)
;; the current OPTIMIZE policy
(policy *policy* :type policy)
- ;; the policy that takes effect in XEPs and related syntax parsing
- ;; functions. Slots in this policy may be null to indicate that the
- ;; normal value in effect.
- (interface-policy *interface-policy* :type policy)
;; an alist of miscellaneous options that are associated with the
;; lexical environment
(options nil :type list))
+
+;;; support for the idiom (in MACROEXPAND and elsewhere) that NIL is
+;;; to be taken as a null lexical environment
+(defun coerce-to-lexenv (x)
+ (etypecase x
+ (null (make-null-lexenv))
+ (lexenv x)))
+
+;;; Is it safe to just grab the lambda expression LAMBDA in isolation,
+;;; ignoring the LEXENV?
+;;;
+;;; Note: The corresponding CMU CL code did something hairier so that
+;;; it could save inline definitions of DEFUNs in nontrivial lexical
+;;; environments. If it's ever important to try to do that, take a
+;;; look at the old CMU CL #'INLINE-SYNTACTIC-CLOSURE.
+(defun lambda-independent-of-lexenv-p (lambda lexenv)
+ (declare (type list lambda) (type lexenv lexenv))
+ (aver (eql (first lambda) 'lambda)) ; basic sanity check
+ ;; This is a trivial implementation that just makes sure that LEXENV
+ ;; doesn't have anything interesting in it. A more sophisticated
+ ;; implementation could skip things in LEXENV which aren't captured
+ ;; by LAMBDA, but this implementation doesn't try.
+ (and (null (lexenv-blocks lexenv))
+ (null (lexenv-tags lexenv))
+ (null (lexenv-vars lexenv))
+ (null (lexenv-funs lexenv))))