#

## Issue DEFCONSTANT-SPECIAL Writeup

    Forum:		Compiler
    Issue:		DEFCONSTANT-SPECIAL
    References:	CLtL p. 68-69, 55-56
    		Issue DEFCONSTANT-NOT-WIRED
    		Issue PROCLAIM-LEXICAL
    		Issue SYNTACTIC-ENVIRONMENT-ACCESS
    		Issue SPECIAL-VARIABLE-TEST
    Category:	CLARIFICATION
    Edit History:   V1, 15 Nov 1988, Sandra Loosemore
    		V2, 22 Nov 1988, Sandra Loosemore
    		V3, 30 Dec 1988, Sandra Loosemore
    		V4, 23 Jan 1989, Sandra Loosemore (amendment)
    Status: Proposal DOESNT-MATTER passed Jan 1989

    Problem Description:

    It is unclear whether DEFCONSTANT is supposed to proclaim the variable
    SPECIAL.  Page 56 says that symbols defined by DEFCONSTANT "may not be
    further assigned to or bound".  Page 69 says that "further assignment
    to or binding of that special variable is an error" but permits
    compilers to "choose to issue warnings about bindings of the lexical
    variable of the same name".  Does this mean that it is legal (but
    perhaps only questionable style) to lexically rebind constants?  If
    so, this would seem to imply that they must not be proclaimed SPECIAL
    (since CLtL provides no way to override a SPECIAL proclamation).

    Some people think that DEFCONSTANT is supposed to proclaim the
    variable SPECIAL because CLtL says that DEFVAR does, and that
    DEFPARAMETER is like DEFVAR, and DEFCONSTANT is like DEFPARAMETER.
    Also, the use of the phrase "that special variable" rather than "the
    special variable of the same name" might indicate that the variable
    really is supposed to be special.

    Proposal DEFCONSTANT-SPECIAL:DOESNT-MATTER:

    Clarify that it is an error to rebind constant symbols as either
    lexical or special variables.  (In other words, a reference to a
    symbol declared with DEFCONSTANT always refers to its global value.)

    Rationale:

    Clarifying that lexical rebinding (as well as special rebinding) of
    constants "is an error" seems to be the behavior that most users
    expect.  One serious problem that might arise from allowing constants
    to be rebound lexically is that it would not be reliable to include
    symbolic constants in macro expansions, because the user might have
    rebound them to something else.

    Current Practice:

    Most implementations apparently proclaim the variable special anyway.

    Cost to implementors:

    Minor.

    Cost to users:

    Probably none.  Since many implementations do proclaim the variable to
    be special (while at the same time forbidding special binding), there
    is probably no user code that depends upon lexical rebinding of
    DEFCONSTANTs.

    Benefits:

    An area of confusion in the language is removed.

    Discussion:

    This issue is primarily a documentation clarification.  It arose
    during a discussion of what the DEFCONSTANT macro might expand into.
    As far as users are concerned, it makes no difference whether
    constants are special or lexical, as long as all rebinding is
    prohibited.  The only situation where the distinction might become
    important is if a function is added to the language to test whether a
    variable has been proclaimed special.

    The "problem description" section of the writeup on issue
    PROCLAIM-LEXICAL (version 8) also appears to assume that constants
    declared with DEFCONSTANT are not special.

Copyright 1996-2001, Xanalys Inc. All rights reserved.