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

Issue DEFVAR-INIT-TIME (Version 2)

Status:	      I worked over the wording on this one a little. Ready for

Issue:        DEFVAR-INIT-TIME
References:   DEFVAR (p68)
Edit history: 23-Apr-87, Version 1 by Pitman
              29-Mar-87, Revision 2 by Masinter

Problem Description:

The description of DEFVAR is not completely clear about the time at
which the initialization occurs.

On p68 it says ``VARIABLE is initialized to the result of evaluating the
form INITIAL-VALUE unless it already has a value. The INITIAL-VALUE form
is not evaluated unless it is used; this fact is useful if evaluation of
the INITIAL-VALUE form does something expensive like create a large data

At least one implementation interpreted the "unless it is used" to mean
"unless the variable is used" rather than "unless the initial-value is
to be used". The problem is that the "it" is ambiguous. Thus, DEFVAR was
interpreted as a kind of lazy initialization that happened upon the
variable's first unbound reference. (This interpretation appears to have
been further supported by the additional wording in CLtL about not
creating expensive structures that are not needed.)


Clarify that the evaluation of the initial value and the initialization
happen at DEFVAR execution time (if at all). The cause of the confusion
is the statement that the initial value form is not evaluated unless "it
is used".  Better to say that INITIAL-VALUE is evaluated if and only if
the variable does not already have a value.  Then there would be no
confusion about the time of evaluation.


This clarification follows the intent of the original Common Lisp

Current Practice:

Nearly all implementations implement the proposed interpretation.

Adoption Cost:

None, for most implementations; very small for any the implementation
that adopted delayed evaluation.


This clarification makes the semantics of an important primitive more

Conversion Cost:

Most users presumably expect the behavior currently in practice in most
dialects. There's not a lot of code where the difference comes into play
anyway. Presumably the conversion cost is fairly trivial.


Being a clarification, this really doesn't have much aesthetic effect.


The cleanup committee supports this clarification.