Re: Introducing `cond-feature'

[Kevin Ryde]

address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> Performing this kind of optimization somehow breaks the
> compilation/execution boundary (see the links Rob posted): `provide?' is
> just a regular procedure, and as such its invocations should not be
> evaluated at compilation-time (the same goes for `defined?').

It's generally a good thing for a compiler to look into constant
expressions and reason based on them.  In fact I'd much rather have
the compiler thinking about my constants than have macros.  Macros
seem like a good idea but 9 times out of 10 they're not really.