[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Question about declaration

    Date: Fri, 11 Dec 87 05:27:16 -0500
    From: quiroz
    I suspect I would write something as uninformative as
	(proclaim '(function foo (list) (values &rest list)))
    which is marginally better than no declaration at all.
    While at this, how do you use the &-markers in a `values' specifier?
    For instance, the only things I believe make sense after &rest in a
    `values' specifier should be `null' (utterly useless) or `list'
    (quite uninformative).  Anything more general than `list' would
    admit of impossible trash, anything disjoint with list is
    unspeakable.  Yet, KCL just let me try `...&rest float'.  Better not
    think what a compiler could do with such.

I think the type specifier for the function FOO is supposed to be
This is because the type specifier following &REST is supposed to declare
the type of all the remaining arguments/values.  You won't find this in CLtL,
but I have it marked in my copy as a proposed clarification in Guy Steele's

If this is NOT the behavior of &REST, then all &REST could tell a
compiler/programmer is that this function can take/return any number
of arguments (depending on where &REST is used).

-- Nick