[Openmcl-devel] Compiler warnings

Ron Garret ron at flownet.com
Wed Oct 21 11:01:38 UTC 2009


On Oct 21, 2009, at 1:52 AM, Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:

> Ron Garret <ron at flownet.com> writes:
>
>>> So I don't agree that the CMUCL behavior is the only reasonable
>>> thing to do.
>>
>> It is *if* you want to strictly adhere to the spec.  But if you want
>> to say that strictly adhering to the spec is not a reasonable thing  
>> to
>> do then I would be the first to agree with you.
>
> I'm on Ron's side but I think this should be worded slightly  
> differently
> so people don't have a problem to agree with it. (It's always
> problematic to feel how the Conformance flag is waved over one's  
> head.)
>
> CMUCl behaviour is the only reasonable thing to do if you want to  
> solve
> the matter _with means the standard provide_.
>
> As the consequences are undefined, implementations may conformingly
> grab for means outside the standard.


Not quite, unfortunately.  Section 3.1.2.1.1 says:

"There are three kinds of variables: lexical variables, dynamic  
variables, and constant variables."

Now, I suppose one could argue whether this means "There are three,  
AND ONLY THREE, kinds of variables" or whether it means "There are AT  
LEAST three kinds of variables."  To my ear it sounds like an  
exhaustive enumeration, but reasonable people could disagree.

I would also like to draw everyone's attention once again to the  
following:

http://rondam.blogspot.com/2009/08/global-variables-done-right.html

No one has commented on this yet one way or the other.  If you don't  
think this (or something like it) is the best solution I would really  
like to know what you think is wrong with it.

rg




More information about the Openmcl-devel mailing list