[Openmcl-devel] Compiler warnings

[Ron Garret]

On Oct 19, 2009, at 2:52 PM, james anderson wrote:

>
> On 2009-10-19, at 23:29 , Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>
>>
>> On 19 Oct 2009, at 21:23, james anderson wrote:
>>
>>> but, if the implementation is of common lisp, it cannot do this.
>>> if it does do do this, then all bets are off, as we have entered a
>>> realm outside of the spec.
>>
>> I think we all know this.
>
> actually, no, i don't.
> at least if "know" is to mean, to understand the implications.
> the tenacity of this confusion made me look. again. and observe how
> definitively outside the spec it is. and conclude, that i would
> actually be just as happy with a lisp which required one to use a
> definition form. a lisp which did not create non-constant value
> bindings with both indefinite scope and indefinite extent.
> for the sake of clarity.
>
> is there some use case which argues against such strictness?

Yes.  I'm doing some testing, so I want some place to stash an  
intermediate result.  I do:

(setf x ...)

Later, after I'm long done with that and the fact that I once created  
a global variable named X, I do this:

(defun make-closure (x) (lambda () ... x ...))

I then expect MAKE-CLOSURE to return a lexical closure.

rg