From ...
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: EVAL Implementations
Date: 1996/08/30
Message-ID: <3050412036443613@arcana.naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 177462202
sender: erik@arcana.naggum.no
references: <3050113682968827@arcana.naggum.no> <500le1$91f@Venus.mcs.com> <3050210651732525@arcana.naggum.no> <DwyJo0.154.0.macbeth@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
organization: Naggum Software; +47 2295 0313; http://www.naggum.no
newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp


[Jeff Dalton]

|   Could you perhaps say, for me and any others in similar boats, what
|   technical issue is, as you see it.

the initial technical point I made was that Common Lisp does not make the
distinction that Robert Munyer said it does in his reply, namely of
_treating_ foo special in (defvar foo ...) and _not_ special in (setq foo
...) at top-level.  his exact words from <4v7ifq$976@Mars.mcs.com> were as
follows:

    DEFVAR doesn't just define a global variable X; it also declares
    that all variables X are "special."  A special variable is dynamic
    rather than lexical, so it bypasses the normal scoping rule.  Look
    what would happen if you used SETQ rather than DEFVAR, to establish
    a global variable without declaring it to be special:

	? (setq x 100)
	100
	? (let ((x 1)) (eval 'x))
	;Compiler warnings :
	;   Unused lexical variable X, in an anonymous lambda form.
	100

I pointed out that the semantics of SETQ at top-level without a special
declaration is not defined by the language.  and the fact remains, it is
not defined by the language.  implementations are free to do what they
want.

|   Well, I'll read the manual, if you say what sections you think are
|   relevant.

in my reply to him in <3049395203874246@arcana.naggum.no>, I wrote:

    for more information on the environments in Common Lisp, see the Common
    Lisp Hyperspec at Harlequin, Inc, section 3.1.1 Introduction to
    Environments.

	http://www.harlequin.com/books/HyperSpec/Body/sec_3-1-1.html

after which Robert argued that the HyperSpec was in conflict with CLtL2,
that he could change a few words to amend his article, and strongly implied
that his purpose was to have _me_ (not the standard, not the language)
distinguish between the behavior of SETQ and DEFVAR at top-level, which I
had already stated very clearly was not defined by the standard.

res ipsa loquitur.

#\Erik
-- 
main () { printf ("%d\n", sin ("foo")); }