Comment 3 for bug 1289779
Revision history for this message
| Stas Boukarev (stassats) wrote Re: Confusion with non-toplevel defun | #3 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
0e1f616
(Get the code!)
And such behaviour should probably only happen when there are benefits, like (defun foo2 () (1+ (foo))), where it can get optimized, passing stuff around just adds an unnecessary typecheck.