[Openmcl-devel] process-run-function and "dynamic vs lexical"
taoufik.dachraoui at wanadoo.fr
Thu Oct 22 12:57:33 EDT 2009
On Oct 22, 2009, at 6:08 PM, Greg Pfeil wrote:
> On 22 Oct 2009, at 11:42, Taoufik Dachraoui wrote:
>> Just for completeness I include the example:
>> ? (defvar y 1)
>> ? (let ((x 2) (y 3))
>> (labels ((f () (format t "~%x=~A y=~A~%" x y)))
>> (ccl:process-run-function "test" #'f)))
>> #<PROCESS test(3) [Reset] #x8D43546>
>> x=2 y=1
>> let creates new variable binding for the names x and y and these
>> bindings are lexical unless they are declared special.
>> Where is my mistake, please note here that I would like to reconcile
>> my understanding with what I see while running ccl code.
> If you check Ron's guide to specials (http://www.flownet.com/ron/specials.pdf
> ), the section "The pervasiveness of DEFVAR" explains what you're
Does this pervasiveness is a fatality?
Looking at CLHS the only thing I could see so far is that (DEFVAR name
establish name as a dynamic variable. I could not find anything about
pervasiveness of DEFVAR.
Also, as explained in my previous post, the let block create new
and since the y name was not declared special I do not see why the
has to complicate things.
Please look again, and pay attention to the name substitutions and try
to tell me
why my reasoning is wrong.
> "Because DEFVAR does more than just establish a dynamic binding for
> X. It pervasively declares all references to X and all subsequent
> bindings for X to be dynamic (or special -- same thing). In other
> words, DEFVAR turns its argument (permanently and pervasively) into
> a special variable."
> So the Y <= 3 binding is actually for the special variable, but the
> binding of the 3 is thread-local, so your function run in its own
> thread still sees the value 1.
More information about the Openmcl-devel