Re: more on compiler warnings about unused vars

[<don...@is...>]

 > 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