[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: navajo!JAR%AI.AI.MIT.EDU@navajo.stanford.edu
- Subject: Issue: PROCLAIM-LEXICAL
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Jon L White)
- Date: Fri, 1 May 87 13:12:21 PDT
- Cc: navajo!KMP%AI.AI.MIT.EDU@navajo.stanford.edu, navajo!CL-Cleanup%SAIL@navajo.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: Jonathan A Rees's message of Thu, 30 Apr 87 22:03:41 EDT
I believe that the deep-binders would be satisfied with top-level
environment being called "global lexical", providing that the "global
special" (or, "global fluid" if you will) is the same. The main issue
is: What does a special reference mean when there is no dynamically
intervening special binding? Is it ok for it to access the "global
lexical" binding? I wouldn't want to go so far as to make an alternative
proposal, providing you agree that this is no problem with the single
top-level environment. [Larry -- could you volunteer some opinion?
This issue will probably affect Xerox's Lisp the most?].
Re: Getting back to terminology: why do you think LOCAL is a better name
than LEXICAL? LEXICAL seems more general and more descriptive ...
To me, "lexical" means "lexically apparent", or "lexically constrained".
In the example:
(DEFUN FOO (X) (DECLARE (SPECIAL X)) (LIST (BAR X) (BAR X)))
both instances of "X" in the calls to "BAR" are "lexical" with respect
to its binding; but "X" isn't lexically bound, it is dynamically bound.
[Note also; it is not "free".] Consider the (free) occurances of "X" in
some other module, which in fact might access the value of this binding;
they are not "lexically apparent". For this reason -- wanting to talk
about lexical context and not imply anything about the bindings of
variables therein -- I tend to prefer another term for the opposite of
SPECIAL. But I'm not at all enamored with the term LOCAL, or even
UNSPECIAL; LEXICAL would be ok as long as the documentation clearly
stressed this point.
-- JonL --