[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
(PROCLAIM '(IGNORE ...))
- To: Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU
- Subject: (PROCLAIM '(IGNORE ...))
- From: Richard Mark Soley <SOLEY@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
- Date: Sat, 19 Apr 86 18:37:59 EST
- Cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA, KMP@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA
- In-reply-to: Msg of Sat 19 Apr 1986 16:07 EST from Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman at C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1986 16:07 EST
From: Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman at C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN at C.CS.CMU.EDU
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
Additionally, the package system offers some protection against this.
I don't think Kent was suggesting that (PROCLAIM '(IGNORE FNORX))
should cause ignorance of all symbols string-equal to "FNORX"!
Note the difference with Zetalisp, in which all variables STRING-equal
to IGNORE are "ignore"d.