bug#15172: 24.3.50; (cl) `Porting Common Lisp'

bug#15172: 24.3.50; (cl) `Porting Common Lisp'

[Drew Adams]

This part is unclear/misleading:

  "In Common Lisp, function arguments and `let' bindings apply
   only to references physically within their bodies
   (or within macro expansions in their bodies).

It is unclear what "function arguments" refers to here.  Does it mean
the formal parameters of a function or its actual arguments?  Or does
it mean arguments whose values are functions?

In any case, what it says about these "function arguments" seems wrong.
I cannot give it a meaning if it is trying to say something about
arguments that are functions.  And if it is trying to say that Common
Lisp always binds the arguments to a function using lexical binding then
that is just wrong.



In GNU Emacs 24.3.50.1 (i686-pc-mingw32)
 of 2013-08-17 on ODIEONE
Bzr revision: 113938 eliz@gnu.org-20130817171807-fxigtkbc6yy8m9iw
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601
Configured using:
 `configure --prefix=/c/Devel/emacs/binary --enable-checking=yes,glyphs
 CFLAGS=-O0 -g3 LDFLAGS=-Lc:/Devel/emacs/lib
 CPPFLAGS=-Ic:/Devel/emacs/include'

bug#15172: 24.3.50; (cl) `Porting Common Lisp'

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> This part is unclear/misleading:
>
>   "In Common Lisp, function arguments and `let' bindings apply
>    only to references physically within their bodies
>    (or within macro expansions in their bodies).
>
> It is unclear what "function arguments" refers to here.  Does it mean
> the formal parameters of a function or its actual arguments?  Or does
> it mean arguments whose values are functions?

I think that's kinda unlikely.  Introducing terminology like "formal
parameters" here (that few are likely to understand) would just make
this even worse.  Closing.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/

bug#15172: 24.3.50; (cl) `Porting Common Lisp'

[Drew Adams]

> > It is unclear what "function arguments" refers to here.  Does it
> > mean the formal parameters of a function or its actual arguments?
> > Or does it mean arguments whose values are functions?
> 
> I think that's kinda unlikely.  Introducing terminology like "formal
> parameters" here (that few are likely to understand) would just make
> this even worse.  Closing.

Clearly you have missed the point.  No one asked that you introduce
"formal parameters".  The point is that it is not clear what is
meant here by "function arguments".  Pick an expression that
actually says what is in fact meant, and fix the bug.  If the answer
is that you mean the arguments passed to the function, then say so.