From ...
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: defvar and (declaim (special ...))
Date: 1999/04/11
Message-ID: <3132863679514425@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 465273263
References: <m2bth3b7aa.fsf@plateau.rug.ac.be> <GL4O2.265$kM2.40098@burlma1-snr2> <sfwhfqp6lua.fsf@world.std.com> <7eoaqg$399$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3132774043802040@naggum.no> <7er6ku$92q$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
mail-copies-to: never
Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879; http://www.naggum.no
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp

* Vassil Nikolov <vnikolov@poboxes.com>
| Let me see if I understand this correctly.  Do you mean that you would
| recognise (DEFVAR *FOO*) as a (minimalist) definition (and not a
| declaration), and you would not look any further?

  yes.

| (In the absence of comments that say something like `definition
| elsewhere,' of course.)

  such would imply to me that the author didn't know what he was doing.

  incidentally, I also think (declaim (special ...)) is a sign of someone
  who has had to hack something up because whatever should have worked,
  didn't.

#:Erik