[Openmcl-devel] Compiler warnings

[Taoufik Dachraoui]

Ron I find your comments aggressive. I do not like the way you are  
tackling this discussion.

If I had your intelligence, your expertise, your experience, I will  
not be here asking dumb
questions.

I am far from being idiot as you tried to infer, but I am lacking some  
of your  the knowledge,
your experience, your expertise. I trying honestly to learn,  
understand, grasp all the
subtelties of CL.

I hope I did not offend anyone inn this thread, I was honestly trying  
to understand.

Some, at last knew how to vehicle the knowledge to a non expert like  
me, some
need to be more expert then what they are.

PS: now after all this discussions, when I read back the first message  
of Gary Byers,
I understand everything he said, it was not obvious for me in the  
beginning.

Kind regards
Taoufik

On Oct 19, 2009, at 3:25 AM, Ron Garret wrote:

>
>
> On Oct 18, 2009, at 11:19 AM, Taoufik Dachraoui wrote:
>
>>
>> As a beginner how do I guess the behavior of SETF when I learned from
>> the specs that there is three kinds of symbols: dynamic, lexical  
>> and constant.
>
> Very badly, apparently.  (Think about that.)
>
> But if you meant to ask: How do I FIND OUT the behavior of SETF in  
> the absence of a preceding DEFVAR?  Then the answer is: you can't  
> learn that from the spec, because the spec simply says it's  
> undefined.  CCL's behavior (and every other Lisp implementation's  
> behavior for that matter) is an EXTENSION to the spec.  To find out  
> how a given implementation extends the spec in that case you have to  
> go to a different source of information.
>
>> But the (SETF X 1) in CCL does not create a dynamic variable as in
>> CMUCL and this is the source of my confusion.
>
> You are confused about more than just that.  Have you read the paper  
> and the blog entry that I referred you to?  No, you (still) have  
> not.  Because if you had would no longer be confused (or at the very  
> least you would be asking different questions).  You are not the  
> first person to have the confusion(s) you are having.  But you are  
> the the first (in my experience) to obstinately refuse to accept the  
> answer(s) that you've been given.
>
> rg
>
>