DEFSTRUCT and lexical environment
in [Lisp]
|
From: Ron Garret on 18 Oct 2009 01:28 In article <m3zl7pgx4g.fsf(a)moon.robolove.meer.net>, Madhu <enometh(a)meer.net> wrote: > * Tim Bradshaw <2009101721013316807-tfb(a)cleycom> : > Wrote on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:01:33 +0100: > > | Inward/Outward capture > > [I see no need to invent new terminology which is then used to wrongly > address the issues at hand] That's because you apparently don't understand the issues at hand. > You may be interested in the propopsal to bind initforms to new names > (via gensym) in the defstruct-generated-constructor's lambda-list which > was termed NOT-BOUND[1]. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is whether the initforms for slots in :included structs are lexically scoped. This has to do with what happens when the symbol naming a slot has been proclaimed special. These have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. rg
From: Madhu on 18 Oct 2009 01:35 * Ron Garret Wrote on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 22:28:24 -0700: [I said I would not respond to you again but you have compelled me to respond. there are clear issues of right and wrong, appropriate and inappropriate, acceptable and unacceptable. These all have to be identified and delineated. What you are doing on this newsgroup is unacceptable] | That's because you apparently don't understand the issues at hand. I make the same claim of you. | This has nothing to do with the topic at hand I never claimed they did. You have again misrepresented what I have said and are forcing me to correct an alleged mistake I did not make. | which is whether the initforms for slots in :included structs are | lexically scoped. This has to do with what happens when the symbol | naming a slot has been proclaimed special. These have nothing | whatsoever to do with one another. Anyone capable of rational thought who can think through the issues will see that they do have an inseparable bearing. Stop wasting our time. -- Madhu
From: Ron Garret on 18 Oct 2009 03:08 In article <m3skdhgt85.fsf(a)moon.robolove.meer.net>, Madhu <enometh(a)meer.net> wrote: > * Ron Garret Wrote on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 22:28:24 -0700: > > [I said I would not respond to you again but you have compelled me to > respond. there are clear issues of right and wrong, appropriate and > inappropriate, acceptable and unacceptable. These all have to be > identified and delineated. What you are doing on this newsgroup is > unacceptable] > > | That's because you apparently don't understand the issues at hand. > > I make the same claim of you. Yes, but like every other claim that you have made in this thread, you don't back it up with any evidence or argument. You merely assert it. > | This has nothing to do with the topic at hand > > I never claimed they did. That's true. But if we're going to play that game, then I never claimed that you made such a claim. You can't have it both ways. Either it is implicit when making a comment in a thread that it has something to do with what has gone before, or it is not. You can't choose to apply one standard to yourself and another to others. (Unless you are a hypocrite. Are you a hypocrite?) > You have again misrepresented what I have said > and are forcing me to correct an alleged mistake I did not make. No one on usenet can force anyone to do anything. > | which is whether the initforms for slots in :included structs are > | lexically scoped. This has to do with what happens when the symbol > | naming a slot has been proclaimed special. These have nothing > | whatsoever to do with one another. > > Anyone capable of rational thought who can think through the issues will > see that they do have an inseparable bearing. See my comment above about making claims unsupported by evidence or argument. rg
From: Tamas K Papp on 18 Oct 2009 03:34 On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:05:06 +0530, Madhu wrote: > * Ron Garret Wrote on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 22:28:24 -0700: > > | which is whether the initforms for slots in :included structs are | > lexically scoped. This has to do with what happens when the symbol | > naming a slot has been proclaimed special. These have nothing | > whatsoever to do with one another. > > Stop wasting our time. I have been following this thread, and I have learned a lot from the comments of Ron (also Tim and others), but I have not learned anything from yours. I would think that it is _you_ who has been wasting people's time (which is of course OK, this being Usenet, and at least this thread was on-topic). Best, Tamas
From: Thomas F. Burdick on 18 Oct 2009 07:50
On Oct 17, 5:59 pm, Ron Garret <rNOSPA...(a)flownet.com> wrote: > There are two types of capture situations, those that involve code that > is passed into the macro as an argument and appears in the macro > expansion, and code that surrounds the macro. AFAIK, the two types of > capture don't really have names, so I'll coin some new terminology: > let's call them INWARD and OUTWARD capture respectively. What you have > just described in inward capture, and it is fixed using gensyms. I like that terminology. Outward capture is a real problem in using defmacro with a Lisp-1, and it's awkward to describe without a good name for it. |