----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID:
<8a511544-26bb-4e20-b44b-a583134d4c80n@googlegroups.com> e89b2b63
@REPLYADDR redsk...@gmail.com
<redsky1066@gmail.com>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 redsk...@gmail.com
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-Message-ID:
<8a511544-26bb-4e20-b44b-a583134d4c80n@googlegroups.com>
@TZUTC: -0700
@PID: G2/1.0
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
Stream designators are conveniences when creating source code. It
makes for compact expression.
BUT: can (or should?) stream designators be used deeper down, as
entities resolved during actual evaluation?
Specifically wondering about SYNONYM-STREAM.
The [dynamic] variable of such a stream holds the value on which
an operation is to be performed.
If that variable is bound to an actual stream object, then
everything seems well-defined.
But if that variable is bound to a STREAM DESIGNATOR, is this
well-defined? We have for instance the ambiguity of designator NIL (input vs
output).
So:
(1) are stream designators formally acceptable as values of the
variable for a SYNONYM-STREAM?
(2) if they are not acceptable, do implementations conform to this
requirement in a consistent manner?
(3) if they are acceptable, should one avoid using designators for
SYNONYM-STREAMs?
(4) are there informative examples that illustrate the pros and cons
of using stream designators in the context of SYNONYM-STREAMs?
--- G2/1.0
* Origin: usenet.network (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5058/104 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441