|
From: <don...@is...> - 2010-10-15 19:54:30
|
> You realize that the reference to b in the progn is dead code. So it's > eliminated, So b is not referenced anymore. Yes, but it used to at least be a useful way to avoid the warnings. > Unfortunately, in loop, there's no place for declarations about loop's > variables. The loop macro itself could have an ignorable declaration > for them but I don't remember if that would be conformant, and it would > be questionnable anyways: the warning is good: did you really not make a > typo? In all of the cases involved there was no typo. I ended up rewriting things like (loop for x in a collect 'input) to (loop for x below (length a) collect 'input) I still have code like (loop for (x y z) in a collect y) I really don't like to use nil there but I could. > > I was even getting "not read" warnings from my loop extension in > > cases like this > > (loop for (a b) s.t. (r a b) collect a) > Too bad you don't say what s.t. is... such that in general (loop for [variable list] s.t. [well formed formula] ...) see ap5.com for more detail |