[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


    Date: Fri, 15 Sep 89 10:21 PDT
    From: Siskind.pa@xerox.com

    This is a CommonLisp question not necessarily a
    Symbolics question.

    I have code which looks something like:

    (loop named outer
	  collect (foo) into x
	  finally (loop for y in x
			when (bar y)
			  do (return-from outer x))
		  (return nil))

    The idea is that the outer loop does some work and builds a
    list. When it is finished, the second loop in the finally
    clause munges over that result. If a certain criteria is met
    for any of the elements of the list, then the whole list is
    returned by the return-from. Otherwise the, outer loop returns
    nil. This works fine on both the L/G-machine and Ivory. When
    I compile this in Lucid I get an error telling me that
    there is no block named NIL when compiling (return-from outer x).
    I can get arround this by doing:

    (block outer
     (loop collect (foo) into x
	   finally (loop for y in x
			 when (bar y)
			   do (return-from outer x))
		   (return nil)))

    which works fine but I don't know whether the first example is
    incorrect CommonLisp code or whether it is a problem with Lucid.

First of all, Common Lisp (as defined by CLtL) doesn't include the fancy
LOOP syntax; ANSI Common Lisp is expected to, though.

What appears to be happening is that the NAMED clause is specifying the
name for the BLOCK that LOOP creates, and this is overriding the default
name of NIL; when leaving a named loop, you must use (RETURN-FROM <name>
<val>).  Genera, however, creates a block named NIL *and* a block with
the specified name, so that either (RETURN <val>) or (RETURN-FROM <name>
<val>) will work.

Your workaround seems OK.  You could also change the second (RETURN NIL)

The draft ANSI LOOP spec isn't very clear about this.  In several places
it says that a RETURN <val> clause is equivalent to DO (RETURN <val>),
which implies that there should always be a block named NIL.  Lucid is
pretty tricky about this -- if the loop is named, it translates a RETURN
clause into the appropriate RETURN-FROM form.  I'm copying this response
to the X3J13 Iteration Subcommittee to alert them to this ambiguity in
the draft.