[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: issue PROCLAIM-LEXICAL
- To: sandra <@cs.utah.edu:sandra@defun>
- Subject: Re: issue PROCLAIM-LEXICAL
- From: Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
- Date: Sat, 15 Oct 88 18:01:42 BST
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: sandra's message of Fri, 14 Oct 88 13:38:27 MDT
> > Date: Fri, 14 Oct 88 19:11:41 BST
> > From: Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
> > There are some problems with the DEFCONSTANT model for "global lexical".
> > The constants are effectively proclaimed SPECIAL but (special) binding
> > is disallowed. Because of the SPECIAL proclamation, this prevents
> > lexical binding too; but lexical binding should not be prevented for
> > global lexicals.
> That isn't what CLtL says about DEFCONSTANT. From p. 69:
You're right, but I was making deductions. Perhaps I read too much
into "that special variable" and "like DEFPARAMETER but". Nonetheless,
Lucid CL 2.1 does proclaim it special.
All I wanted to establish was that lexical bindings should be OK.