Re: WG: Recovering the once true meaning of type NIL in LOOP

Bruno Haible writes:
 > > Consider (macroexpand-1'
 > > (LOOP for (i j k) of-type (fixnum) across #())
 > 
 > Who says that this should expand to something reasonable?
 > 
 > Citing 6.1.1.7 "Destructuring"

 >   "When aligning the trees, an atom in the tree of type specifiers
 >    that matches a cons in the variable tree declares the same type
 >    for each variable in the subtree rooted at the cons."
 > 
 > So this form declares I as being of type FIXNUM and J and K as
 > being of type NIL.

My interpretation of
 an atom in the type specifier matches a cons in the variable tree
would be fixnum matching (i j k) in
 (LOOP for (i j k) of-type fixnum ...)
so in that case i,j,k would all be declared fixnum,
but in (LOOP for (i j k) of-type (fixnum) ...)
I would expect the atom fixnum to match only i, and I would NOT
expect of-type (fixnum) to mean the same as of-type (fixnum nil nil)
so I would expect j and k to be of unspecified type.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
clisp-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clisp-devel