In article <m38ytngvl4....@javamonkey.com>, Peter Seibel
<pe...@javamonkey.com> wrote:- - - and - - -
> I think I need to recant, or at least rethink, this
> explanation. Because the way I wanted to understand "binding", "bind",
> "bound", and "unbound" doesn't fit with the definiton of BOUNDP and
> MAKUNBOUND and the observed behavior of two implementations.
> I'm fairly sure I understand the *behavior* of DEFVAR, LET,Same here, I also am fairly certain that I understand the actual
> PROGV, BOUNDP, MAKUNBOUND, etc. I'm just confused about how to
> correctly use the terminology of the spec to describe that behavior.
*behavior* of those CL terms. I can look at a code segment containg
those terms and anticipate how it will act once it is executed.
It is just that I have been away from CL for many years now, so I don't
So, to be better Lisp users, we all try to understand the terms used to
Take the term "binding" for example. The CL HyperSpec glossary
Well we can pretty well rule out 'binding' as being a person<g>
It is tempting to think of a binding as a thing. (a value, for example)
A binding could also be thought of as a place, a particular place in a
As to whether a binding is a place or a value stored in that place or
Does that hurt us? Maybe. We might come to differing conclusions
Can we avoid that predictament? Mostly we can, by experimenting with
We can each ask ourselves, how certain are we that our particular idea
We can discuss this until we are blue in the face, but I don't think we
I am content to let the subject drop, but will listen intently to
Thanks to all, you have cleared the air quite a bit regarding
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.