In article <·····················@elin.e.kth.se> ·······@e.kth.se (Richard Levitte) writes:
>Seriously, in CLtL2, page 196, I find the following:
>
>&whole This is followed by a single variable .....
> ... &whole and the following variable should appear first in the
> lambda-list, before any other parameter or lambda-list keyword.
>
>It is the last sentence I wonder about. Does "should" mean it is an
>if &whole foo is found somewhere else in the lambda-list, Lisp should
>signal an error, or is it OK to place it somewhere else? Or is the &whole
>issue undefined, making funny noises when not first ine line? Is this
>better explained or defined in the dpANS (I don't have it... yet)?
X3J13 realized that the use of "should" was ambiguous. The dpANS says: "If
\keyref{whole} and a following variable appear, they must appear first in
\param{lambda-list}, before any other parameter or \term{lambda list
keyword}." This means that the consequences of putting &WHOLE anywhere but
first is undefined, so any results are possible. An implementation may
accept it, reject it with an error, core dump, make funny noises, etc.
--
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.
······@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar