DEFSTRUCT and lexical environment
in [Lisp]
|
From: Pascal Costanza on 15 Oct 2009 03:51 Tamas K Papp wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:28:19 +0200, Pascal Costanza wrote: > >> Heck, they got prog2 wrong. ;) This issue being discussed here is much > > How is prog2 wrong? (Or if this is a joke, sorry, I am not getting it). Read the HyperSpec entry. Madhu probably thinks they have very deeply thought about the wording there as well, and will argue that all CL vendors implement this incorrectly... ;) Pascal -- My website: http://p-cos.net Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
From: Scott Burson on 15 Oct 2009 13:54 On Oct 14, 4:59 am, bj...(a)runa.se (Björn Lindberg) wrote: > It would be interesting to have Kent Pitman's input on the subject. You already have Alan Bawden's input (see earlier in this thread), which addresses your question very well. Though Alan doesn't post here much, I assure you he is as highly regarded in the CL implementor community as Kent. -- Scott
From: Tim Bradshaw on 15 Oct 2009 14:19 On 2009-10-14 23:41:24 +0100, Madhu <enometh(a)meer.net> said: > No, I maintain it is logically (in a ron-garett) sense impossible given > the motivation and the item being defined. > > The more plausible explanation is that they thought about it and punted > on it as there was a reasonable implementation. Gosh. And of course you are much better equipped to speak about this than people who were actually there.
From: Tim Bradshaw on 15 Oct 2009 14:20 On 2009-10-15 08:41:53 +0100, Tamas K Papp <tkpapp(a)gmail.com> said: > How is prog2 wrong? "prog2 evaluates first-form, then second-form, and then forms, yielding as its only value the primary value yielded by first-form."
From: Tamas K Papp on 15 Oct 2009 14:32
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:20:30 +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote: > On 2009-10-15 08:41:53 +0100, Tamas K Papp <tkpapp(a)gmail.com> said: > >> How is prog2 wrong? > > "prog2 evaluates first-form, then second-form, and then forms, yielding > as its only value the primary value yielded by first-form." Oh, I see, thanks. But it is pretty clear that this is an unintented mistake, and there is no ambiguity (no one would seriously suggest that (prog2 1 2 3) => 2 is non-conforming). Tamas |