[Gcl-devel] Re: SAFETY for interpreted code

[Camm Maguire]

Greetings!

Robert Boyer <address@hidden> writes:

> > AFAICT, safety only pertains to compiled.
> 
> Strictly speaking, I do not think that claim is perfectly
> accurate for ANSI Common Lisp in general.
> 
> I believe SAFETY is always relevant when "processing" LISP
> code because the safety level, which has lexical scope,
> determines in some cases whether errors are signaled.  Of
> course, it is always OK for the implementation to act as
> though safety=3.  From the ANSI:
> 
>    Implementations are permitted to treat all code as safe code
>    all the time.
> 
> Ergo, it is ok for GCL to act this way.  And I shall take it

Great!  At least one think is OK :-).

> as official GCL policy that when interpreting code, as
> opposed to executing compiled code, GCL always acts as
> though SAFETY=3, regardless of its actual lexical value.
> So, as you say:
> 
> > All interpreted code is equivalent to compiled safety 3, AFAICT.
> 
> I have not been able to find anything that tells one what
> the official ANSI default SAFETY setting is for the
> read-eval-print loop, compile, or compile-file.
> 

Thanks so much for your enlightening inquiry into these things.

Take care,

> Bob
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Camm Maguire                                            address@hidden
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah