[Openmcl-devel] Compiler warnings

[Taoufik Dachraoui]

I would like to recap the issues:

1. (THE type form)
should compares type with the type of the returned value of form

2. at top-level
(SETF var form)
defines a variable that is not dynamic but and not exactly lexical  
either, because
we cannot declare a lexical variable as special. But the variables  
defined
by SETF are not dynamic and we can declare them as special. So the  
vaiable
is not dynamic and is not lexical.

I think that SETF should define a global lexical variable if the  
variable is not
previously defined by DEFVAR or DEFPARAMETER (unlike CMUCL SETF se  
below).

Recall that I showed an example of SETF in CMUCL. CMUCL SETF defines a  
special
variable and raises a warning because the variable was not declared  
using DEFVAR or
DEFPARAMETER.

I think someone should carrefully look at this issues and decide what  
to do with them.

Taoufik


On Oct 18, 2009, at 1:21 PM, Ron Garret wrote:

>
> On Oct 18, 2009, at 4:14 AM, Taoufik Dachraoui wrote:
>
>> Also, I would like to insist on the fact that SETF creates a  
>> lexical variable (on behavior at least,
>> it is weird for me to say that because for me when I learned Common  
>> Lisp I was told that
>> there a daynamic and lexical variables).
>
> Insist all you want, that won't make you right.
>
>> The following example shows that SETF creates a lexical variable  
>> (because f always returns
>> the value of x as defined by SETF)
>
> No, it doesn't:
>
> ? (setf x 1)
> 1
> ? (defun f () (+ x 1))
> ;Compiler warnings :
> ;   In F: Undeclared free variable X
> F
> ? (let ((x pi)) (declare (special x)) (f))
> 4.141592653589793D0
> ? x
> 1
> ?
>
>>
>> If you do not agree please explain in more details so I learn and  
>> understand something new.
>>
>
> See:
>
> http://www.flownet.com/ron/specials.pdf
>
> rg
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.clozure.com/pipermail/openmcl-devel/attachments/20091018/9cff167c/attachment.htm>