From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: EVAL Implementations Date: 1996/08/23 Message-ID: <3049754333170201@arcana.naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 175838021 sender: erik@arcana.naggum.no references: <4utk8d$4j0@net.auckland.ac.nz> <4vahg9$dcf@tools.bbnplanet.com> <4vd30q$1b5@Venus.mcs.com> <3049576919413620@arcana.naggum.no> <4virns$3te@Venus.mcs.com> organization: Naggum Software; +47 2295 0313 newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Robert Munyer's exceedingly lengthy diatribe seems to hinge on one issue: whether the semantics of `setq' at top-level of a variable that has not been declared special is defined by Common Lisp. I can't see that it is. I'd like Robert to show me how he found the semantics of this to be defined by the language specification since he makes so many conclusion based on his assumption that its semantics _is_ defined. barring any overlooked clauses which Robert will bring to my attention, whatever it is that he's trying to distinguish between `setq' and `defvar' at top-level is purely a matter of how _implementations_ differ in implementing undefined semantics. I'm sorry to see that Robert incessantly perceives any pointers to a specification that does not support his claims, together with a refusal to speak on behalf of or for those who defined the standard, as "vagueness". I do not find it to be my job to over-interpret a standard in the face of unwillingness, or even lack of interest, to read it. If a standard cannot speak for itself, it should be improved until it does, but it is hopeless to attempt to let things speak for themselves if the audience does not share its context. I specifically do not claim that I understand the totality of Common Lisp, which is why I point to authoritative sources that I find to contradict non-authoritative examples that do not appears to show an interest in the language, but rather in implementations, which concern me only inso far as they implement the specification. otherwise, they have bugs that should be reported. if legitimate disagreement over some clause in the standard is found, the right thing is to submit a request for clarification to ANSI about it -- there are procedures for this, and the committee should be prepared to handle such requests. a prerequisite to all this is of course that all parties involved in the disagreement know precisely what the standard says on the issue (or not, as the case may be). finally, this is not a question of whether _I_ agree or disagree with anything Robert says or implies. the question is: is the basic assumption on which Robert seems to build his entire case _valid_ in the context of the language definition? if not, his case be dismissed. I was trying to point Robert in the direction of realizing that he had no foundation for what he was claiming with such authority. I still see no foundation. I see no realizing he has no foundation, either, and that is what really irks me in this case. to have the gall to conjure up some elaborate "DAG" of arguments when his basic assumption is in question! Robert, the HyperSpec is there for your perusal. I suggest you use to support your case. I regret the need to play standards lawyer with you, but you compel me to it. (compare that with what you feel forced to.) the question is: does ANSI Common Lisp (or CLtL2 for that matter) define the semantics of `setq' at top-level, including whether the symbol should be declared or proclaimed special? this is a very specific question, and I will hear no more about Robert's delusions of "vagueness" in response. #\Erik