Subject: Re: Newbie asking for help From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 2000/06/28 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * Simon Brooke <firstname.lastname@example.org> | > If you need clarification: SETQ does not _create_ a binding. It | > _modifies_ an _existing_ binding. | | That is a bald assertion. Undoubtedly you believe it. Well, as a good Lisp programmer should. It happens to be true. You are still wrong on every technical count you have raised. That's pretty good work, actually, since by chance you'd be right at least _some_ of the time. | It isn't what the Aluminium Book says, and it isn't what the | Hyperspec says. Earlier, you were just wrong. This, now, is a _lot_ worse. | Furthermore, its falsehood is demonstrable by simple reference to | any working Common LISP system: | | USER(1): (boundp 'foo) | NIL | USER(2): (setq foo 123) | 123 | USER(3): (boundp 'foo) | T And (let ((foo 1)) (boundp 'foo)) produces _what_ before and after that setq form? Did you look at the description of boundp? Are you sure you are gaining anything by demonstrating what you are _in fact_ demonstrating, given that it differs somewhat from what you think you are demonstrating, to put it very mildly? #:Erik -- If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.