[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- Subject: Issue: PROCLAIM-LEXICAL
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Tue, 4 Apr 89 15:36 EDT
- Cc: JAR@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
My notes say...
KMP made a friendly amendment to clarify the status of undeclared
free variables (as undefined). The text of the amendment was:
Proposed amendment to PROCLAIM-LEXICAL KMP 3/30/89
Add: Referencing a free variable that is neither proclaimed
nor declared LEXICAL nor SPECIAL has undefined
This enables existing implementations to persist in permitting,
(SETQ X 3)
without defining X as lexical or special, yet allows those
implementations that want to warn about
(DEFUN F (X) (+ X Y))
when Y is undeclared/proclaimed to legitimately do so.
GZ wanted an amendment that would make it an error to use the LEXICAL
declaration when there was not a lexically visible binding to which
it might refer. Her amendment failed 5-12.
The proposal (with friendly amendment by KMP but without GZ's
amendment) finally failed 6-11.