[Openmcl-devel] Compiler warnings
taoufik.dachraoui at wanadoo.fr
Sun Oct 18 15:30:15 UTC 2009
On Oct 18, 2009, at 4:54 PM, Greg Pfeil wrote:
> [bringing back to the list, as I forgot to CC them on my last message]
> On 18 Oct 2009, at 9:58, Taoufik Dachraoui wrote:
>> In our example:
>> (setf x 1)
>> (THE fixnum x)
>> The form x returns 1 and the type of 1 is fixnum thus I do not
>> understand why the compiler
>> raise a warning; Suppose that the compiler raises an error instead
>> of a warning
>> stating that the x is an undeclared free variable; this may be
>> reasonable but it is not
>> compliant with the standard.
> Perhaps if I show you an analogous example at eval-time (as opposed
> to compile-time) you will see how the warning that is signaled has
> nothing to do with THE.
> ? (defun the* (type expr)
> (declare (ignore type))
> ? (the* 'fixnum x)
> > Error: Unbound variable: X
> Would you say here that THE* is signaling the error? The function
> THE* has not yet been called at the point of the error. The error
> exists merely because the form has the undeclared (and thus unbound)
> variable X in it.
? (setf x 1)
? (defun the* (type expr)
(declare (ignore type))
? (the* 'fixnum x)
So here you see you do not get an error (you just forgot to setf x)
> With (the fixnum x) a similar thing is happening at compile time.
>> Please bear with I may be mistaken, but as far as I can see and
>> understand, this issue looks
> Here is the real issue: you think it is possible that you are _not_
> mistaken. The people you are conversing with on the list have each
> been dealing with the spec since it was written. They are legion and
> they are all in agreement that you are wrong. What you should do is
> accept that you are wrong, and work on figuring out what your
> misunderstanding is. As long as you maintain that you may be
> correct, you will have a hard time seeing why you are not.
I respect all of you and I recognize that I am far from being a lisp
guru, and consider my self
lucky to be able to discuss things in this site. I learned a great
deal of things thanks to you all.
But I have to confess, I am still not convinced, and I think that the
THE operator is not
conformant to the specs [according to the spec THE should compare the
with the type of the returned value of the form]; please forget about
because there is some confusions about if warning is necessary or not.
Also, look how SETF in CMUCL and CCL are behaving differently as is
* (setf d 2)
Warning: Declaring D special.
* (defun f () (+ 1 d))
* (let ((d 5)) (f))
>>>> d is dynamic; at call time f uses the last d value >>>>>
? (setf d 2)
? (defun f () (+ 1 d))
;Compiler warnings :
; In F: Undeclared free variable D
? (let ((d 5)) (f))
;Compiler warnings :
; In an anonymous lambda form: Unused lexical variable D
>>>>> d is lexical; within f d is bound to the lexical value 2 at
This shows that setf is implemented differently; maybe it is
interesting to compare
this with other implementations.
More information about the Openmcl-devel