[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Some easy ones (?)
- To: FREEMAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
- Subject: Re: Some easy ones (?)
- From: NGALL@G.BBN.COM
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1986 01:39:00 -0000
- Cc: Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU, common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- In-reply-to: <12225052592.76.FREEMAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
- Sender: NGALL@G.BBN.COM
Date: Wed 23 Jul 86 13:59:34-PDT
From: Andy Freeman <FREEMAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Nick (NGALL@G.BBN.COM) replied to Fahlman:
Proposal #9: Variable Name Conflicts
Specify that it is an error for two parameters (including
supplied-p and &aux parameters) in the same lambda-list to
have the same (EQL) name.
[As previous discussion brought out, we could instead allow this
case with the last-bound (rightmost) argument shadowing previous
bindings in the same arglist, but this is certainly bad style and
interacts in nasty ways with the proposed change to the scope of
Specify same for LET, LET*, DO, DO*, FLET, LABELS, PROGV, MACROLET,
MV-BIND, and PROG.
I don't know about DO*, but LET* should be able to shadow previous names.
The restriction seems reasonable for the others mentioned.
Why should LET* be able to shadow previous names when LAMBDA expressions