From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: let bindings Date: 1999/09/14 Message-ID: <3146304078838539@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 524965605 References: mail-copies-to: never X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.eunet.no X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 937315280 21869 193.71.66.49 (14 Sep 1999 13:21:20 GMT) Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879; +1 510 435 8604; http://www.naggum.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Sep 1999 13:21:20 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * Mark Carroll | I get the impression from the CLHS that | (let ((x 1)) (let ((x (+ x 1))) x)) will always happily return 2? what's your question? assuming that it has to do with the scope of the bindings, the scope of bindings in a LET can informally be said to be the body form, but none of the value forms. the scope of bindings in a LET* can informally be said to include the following value forms and the body. in an FLET, the scope is likewise the body, only, but in LABELS the scope is informally the entire LABELS form. in MACROLET, the scope is the body of the whole form, but the bodies of the macros defined are expanded _in_ that body, so the scope appears to be the whole form. whether this is simple or complex to deal with seems to depend on the mental model brought to the issues at hand. for instance, I fail to see what could possibly be ambiguous about the specification which would lead anyone to have only "impressions" as to what it says in this particular case, but it could be that the lack of some particular wording or minute point renders a reader with a predetermined model unable to get a preconceived question resolved. I'd like to understand what the pre-existing model and issue are, since it seems to be a lot of small issues like this that keep people from seeing the "bloody obvious", and I'm sure it's possible to get rid of a lot of confusion with some very simple statement to dispell confusion. #:Erik