Re: [Maxima-discuss] progress report on lexical symbols stuff

[Robert D. <rob...@gm...>]

On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 7:57 AM Michel Talon <ta...@lp...> wrote:

> it seems to me that what you call an extent in which a lexical symbol is defined is what is called scope in lisp's discussions on the same subject. while extent refers to the duration of the corresponding bindings (indefinite for local variables when they occur in closures). Not that the terminology has any importance, but in this case it may lead to some confusion.

Thanks for your comment. I have purposely avoided trying to reconcile
the terms used to talk about the lexical stuff in Maxima with similar
terms used in Common Lisp or any other language, since that brings a
whole raft of implications that are not necessarily relevant. If one
starts to talk about lexical symbols acting "just like" Common Lisp in
some way, then that creates pressure to finish the job and make the
whole thing work the same. I would much rather start from a
well-defined point of departure and go from there. Whether that ends
up coinciding with any existing language is a happy accident, not a
design goal. Obviously the stuff I've done (and I don't claim the
story is over) is unoriginal and completely derivative of past efforts
-- I'm not claiming to invent any new ideas, just a particular
implementation of them, specifically for Maxima and therefore not
necessarily the same as some other implementation.

I am willing to consider a different set of axioms, although I would
be much more interested if it is phrased as something like "here is an
interesting set of principles that lead to useful results" as opposed
to "this is the way it is done in Common Lisp / Emacs Lisp / Scheme
and that is why we should do it", which is, I'm afraid, completely
unconvincing to me.

best,

Robert