Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Implementation Favoritism, a question of Lisp mindsets
From: Mark Conrad <nos...@iam.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <030520031603545620%nospam@iam.invalid>
References: <jkCma.9$NE4.382@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <b7gl6c$sn9$07$1@news.t-online.com> <20030415104420.G13181@lain.cheme.cmu.edu> <b7hrhm$o6b$07$1@news.t-online.com> <160420030037089214%nospam@iam.invalid> <878yua4p14.fsf@bird.agharta.de> <160420031526227070%nospam@iam.invalid> <871xzr5rmu.fsf@tenkan.org> <240420032331017657%nospam@iam.invalid> <u1cmel15.fsf@ccs.neu.edu> <260420030346386552%nospam@iam.invalid> <bryqadzs.fsf@ccs.neu.edu> <280420032247144579%nospam@iam.invalid> <m3r87loheb.fsf@javamonkey.com> <010520030523544492%nospam@iam.invalid> <ey3vfwuepjf.fsf@cley.com> <010520031630305344%nospam@iam.invalid> <86fznyurn4.fsf@bogomips.optonline.net> <020520030140499402%nospam@iam.invalid> <861xzh4oew.fsf@bogomips.optonline.net> <020520031429570028%nospam@iam.invalid> <slrnbb5ses.on.Gareth.McCaughan@g.local> <020520031940504126%nospam@iam.invalid> <7gwuh87ert.fsf@gnufans.net> <030520030656285651%nospam@iam.invalid> <u7wuh8gicn.fsf@snapdragon.csl.sri.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
User-Agent: Thoth/1.5.5 (Carbon/OS X)
Lines: 17
Date: Sat, 03 May 2003 23:01:04 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.119.18.145
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1052002864 216.119.18.145 (Sat, 03 May 2003 16:01:04 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 03 May 2003 16:01:04 PDT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

In article <u7wuh8gicn....@snapdragon.csl.sri.com>, Fred Gilham
<gil...@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> wrote:

> But, as you saw, the binding for X can still be accessed by the
> functions in the closure that captured them, because the binding has
> infinite extent.

Yes, I am going to have to be satisfied with that, and stop looking for
other dark hidden meanings for the word "binding".

Namely, can a binding still exist when no value is assigned to the
binding.

My knee-jerk reaction is that any binding, in order to  *be*  a
binding, has to have a value assigned to the binding.

Mark-