[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[not about] Constant Functions
- To: Moon@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com
- Subject: [not about] Constant Functions
- From: Jon L White <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 9 May 88 13:17:35 PDT
- Cc: email@example.com, ELIOT@cs.umass.edu, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: David A. Moon's message of Mon, 9 May 88 12:24 EDT <19880509162404.9.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
re: Date: Sat, 7 May 88 03:13:06 PDT
From: Jon L White <email@example.com>
CLtL, p162 speaks of the VALUES declaration; it says nothing at all
That's a type-specifier, not a declaration.
Extended the way implied by barmar, it's also a declaration; see CLtL p158.
Just for the record, when one can do (DECLARE (<foo> X Y Z)), one usually
speaks of this as the <foo> declaration, even when <foo> is basically a
type-specifier. The rationale is apparently that this form is an
abbreviation for (DECLARE (TYPE <foo> X Y Z)).
re: One could introduce a different word for this type of declaration,
instead of using DECLARE, but I think that would be more confusing than
DECLARE is good enough. I'm happy to see that Symbolics didn't perpetrate
the lossage implied in recent messages that such a declare would be
equivalent to a (non-lexical) PROCLAIM.
-- JonL --