1:38:33ruffianeoyes I think I tried something like that ... maybe
1:38:51no-defun-allowedOne idea though: instead of generating (remote-foo 1 2 3), why not (remote (foo 1 2 3))? Defining REMOTE would be trivial, and it'd just look like FOO otherwise.
1:46:28ruffianeo(remote (name &rest args) ...) could be a second macro I then simply use for the first one
2:33:31ruffianeoI give up for today - thanks for the help!
13:04:32pveHi, are implementations required to store the source code of function definitions (as a string or cons)? I can see that on SBCL, (describe #'foo) shows me the source form, but (describe #'+) does not. Does it depend on the optimization settings used when compiling the code?
13:05:01beachIf they were, no commercial Common Lisp vendor would be in business.
13:05:15beachBecause you could then see the source code of the entire implementation.
13:06:21Bikebut yeah, probably depends on the SPACE and DEBUG optimization settings