[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
(PROCLAIM '(IGNORE ...))
- To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
- Subject: (PROCLAIM '(IGNORE ...))
- From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
- Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1986 20:07:00 -0000
- Cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- In-reply-to: Msg of 18 Apr 1986 00:50-EST from Kent M Pitman <KMP at SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
- Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Special treatment of IGNORE as a variable name was left out of the
language because a lot of people objected to having the language poke
holes in the namespace. (However, we relented with T, NIL, and the
various &... symbols.)
The lexically scoped IGNORE declaration seemed a much cleaner solution.
Allowing global IGNORE proclamations seems a bit unclean to me, since
it can have an effect on variables that come in from God-knows-where and
that were never intended to be ignored. On the other hand, this would
not be disastrous -- it would result in a few spurious compiler warnings
in a few odd cases, and it wouldn't be at all hard to see what went
wrong.
So I wouldn't object to a decision that (PROCLAIM '(IGNORE ...))
is legal.
-- Scott