43
or BLOCK not encoded in the macro rules. The cases shown so far are actually special cases of a more general approach, special in that all the conceptual closures involved_are closed in the same environment, and called from places that have not disturbed that environment, but only used "registers". In the more general case, the environments of caller and called function will be different.
This divides into two subcases, corresponding to whether the closure was created by ax simple LAMBDA or by a LABELS construction. The latter involves circular references, and so is somewhat more complicated; but it is easy to show that in the former case the environment of the caller must be that of the (known) called function, possibly with additional values added on. This is a consequence of lexical scoping. As a result, the function call can be compiled as a GOTO preceded by an environment adjustment which consists merely of lopping off some leading portion of the current one (intuitively, one simply 'pops the unnecessary crud off the stack"). LABELS-closed functions also can be treated in this way, if one closes all the functions in the same way (which RABBIT presently does, but this is not always desirable). If one does, then it is easy to see the effect of expanding a PROG into a giant LABELS as outlined in [Imperative] and elsewhere: normally, a GOTO to a tag at the same level of PROG will involve no adjustment of environment, and so compile into a simple GOTO instruction, whereas a GOTO to a tag at aux outer level of PROG probably will involve adjusting the environment from that of the inner PROG to that of the outer. All of this falls out of the proper imperative treatment of function calls.
