#

## Issue EVALHOOK-STEP-CONFUSION Writeup

    Forum:		Cleanup
    Issue:		EVALHOOK-STEP-CONFUSION
    References:	CLtL p 321, 323, 441
    		Issue STEP-ENVIRONMENT (passed)
                    Issue APPLYHOOK-ENVIRONMENT (passed)
    Category:	CHANGE/CLARIFICATION
    Edit History:   V1, 9 Oct 1989, Sandra Loosemore
    		V2, 2 Nov 1989, Sandra Loosemore (update discussion)
    	        V3, 4 Dec 1990, Pitman (amendment per X3J13)

    Problem Description:

    Common Lisp permits the evaluator to be implemented by compiling the
    form before executing it, but notes that this techniques "renders the
    EVALHOOK mechanism relatively useless" (CLtL p. 321).

    CLtL also requires the STEP utility to be implemented in terms of
    EVALHOOK (p. 323).  The restriction against implementing STEP using
    some other technique (such as annotations on code lexically within the
    body of the STEP) that make more sense in a compiled-only
    implementation is pointless.  It is probably not even desirable for
    STEP to be implemented with *EVALHOOK*, since this effectively causes
    the stepper to break on user programs that also use *EVALHOOK*.

    Proposal (EVALHOOK-STEP-CONFUSION:X3J13-NOV-89):

    (a) Remove the requirement that STEP be implemented using *EVALHOOK*.
    Make it explicitly vague whether the scope of the code that is affected
    by STEP is lexical or dynamic.

    (b) Delete *EVALHOOK*, *APPLYHOOK*, EVALHOOK, and APPLYHOOK.

    Proposal (EVALHOOK-STEP-CONFUSION:FIX):

    (1) Clarify that there is no guarantee that the functions that are the
    values of *EVALHOOK* and *APPLYHOOK* will ever be invoked during
    evaluation.

    (2) Remove the requirement that STEP be implemented using *EVALHOOK*.
    Make it explicitly vague whether the scope of the code that is affected
    by STEP is lexical or dynamic.

    (3) Deprecate *EVALHOOK*, *APPLYHOOK*, EVALHOOK, and APPLYHOOK.

    Rationale:

    Point by point:

    (1) This is merely an explicit statement of the status quo.

    (2) This permits compiled-only implementations to support a STEP
    utility that does something useful.

    (3) The eval hook mechanism is a relic of a particular interpreter
    implementation technique and really has no place in a language
    standard, especially since one of the stated goals of the language is
    consistency between compiled and interpreted code.  Since there is no
    guarantee that these functions will ever be invoked, portable programs
    should not rely on them.

    Current Practice:

    According to Kent Pitman:
      I'm told by the guys who did the Cloe implementation that indeed
      neither evalhook nor step do much of anything useful.  If I understood
      them correctly, *evalhook* just never gets called, and step works by a
      different mechanism that may work at a granularity different than what
      people expect.

    Loosemore has been implementing an evaluator for Utah Common Lisp that
    uses a preprocessor to partially compile programs.  The interpreter
    for the processed code does support the use of an *evalhook*-like
    special variable, but the information it is passed is in a different
    format than that which *evalhook* requires.  In particular, the object
    representing the lexical environment contains only bindings and not
    syntactic information such as macro definitions.  It also supports a
    variety of annotation-based program debugging hooks that are specified
    by declarations.  We are in the process of integrating the
    preprocessor into the UCL compiler so that most of these debugging
    hooks will also work in compiled code.

    Cost to implementors:

    None.

    Cost to users:

    None.

    Benefits:

    Users will not be misled into thinking *evalhook* is more portable
    than it actually is.

    Compiled-only implementations can make STEP do something reasonable.

    Discussion:

    There is an article by Parker in Lisp Pointers, Vol 1 #4 which
    describes one approach for annotation-based debugging.  Loosemore's
    PhD dissertation (soon to be available as a UofU Tech Report) also
    discusses alternate approaches for implementing program steppers.

    Scott Fahlman says:
      I am staying out of most of these discussions, but thought I'd throw in my
      two cents' worth on this one: I would very much like to see evalhook and
      applyhook removed from the standard.  They have been a constant source of
      confusion, and there are so many different interpretations of what these
      hooks do that facilities built on top of them are not really very portable
      in practice.  I'm now convinced that a really good stepping package cannot
      easily be written using these hooks, but must be integrated into the
      interpreter of a given implementation.

    David Moon says:
      Seems okay, except that if we are going to deprecate these things,
      I would much rather just remove them.  You would surely argue that
      no significant program could possibly be depending on EVALHOOK,
      since it has no semantics, so there can't be a compatibility issue.
      If we agree that something is a bad idea, I would rather remove it
      entirely unless there is a compelling compatibility reason to only
      deprecate it.  In fact even if some programs used EVALHOOK, I would
      still want to remove it, as I long ago ceased to believe in any
      fantasy of seamless compatibility between CLtL and ANSI CL.  But
      others might not agree with me there.

      Plus if we remove them, Symbolics doesn't have to fix the bug that
      EVALHOOK and APPLYHOOK accidentally got declared SPECIAL.  I mention
      this only as an example of the costs of deprecating things instead
      of removing them.  They have to be maintained.  Not only do they have
      to be documented, but in addition to documenting them we have to tell
      people not to use them.

    Loosemore says:
      I'd rather get rid of these things entirely too, but I have previously
      noted some resistance to the idea from others.  Maybe they've changed
      their minds by now.  Anyway, if we can't agree to delete them now,
      deprecation is better than the current situation.
    -------

Copyright 1996-2001, Xanalys Inc. All rights reserved.