#

## Issue LOOP-NAMED-BLOCK-NIL Writeup

    Status:       Proposal OVERRIDE (version 2) accepted 12/91
    Issue:        LOOP-NAMED-BLOCK-NIL
    Reference:    Draft 9.126
    Category:     CLARIFICATION
    Edit History: Version 1, 22-Dec-91, Kim Barrett
                  Version 2, 26-Jan-92, Kim Barrett (clarification, per KMP)

    Problem Description:

     (Note: All section numbers are from Draft 9.126)

      Regarding:

      section 8.1.2.2, page 8-2, last paragraph in section

       Expansion of the \macref{loop} macro produces an implicit block named \nil\
       unless \loop{named} is supplied.  Thus, \macref{return} and
       \specref{return-from} can be used to return values from \macref{loop} or to
       exit \macref{loop}.

      section 8.1.2.6, End-Test Control, p8-15, first itemization

       \itemitem{\bull} The \loop{until} construct executes any \loop{finally}
       clause. Since \loop{thereis} uses the macro \macref{return} to terminate
       iteration, any \loop{finally} clause that is supplied is not evaluated.

      section 8.1.2.6, End-Test Control, p8-15, second itemization

       \itemitem{\bull} The \loop{until} construct executes any \loop{finally}
       clause. Since \loop{never} uses the macro \macref{return} to terminate
       iteration, any \loop{finally} clause that is supplied is not evaluated.

     In his review, Barmar noted "hmm..." in regard to this issue of not having a
     NIL block get generated even when NAMED is used.  He and KMP discussed it and
     decided (based on examining the Lucid and Symbolics implementations) that the
     intent was clear and they would let it go.

     In processing other review comments of Barmar's, KMP noticed that these two
     items refer specifically to RETURN (rather than RETURN-FROM) being generated.
     This suggests one of the following two things:

     (a) RETURN was not intended in the second two cases, and RETURN-FROM was
         meant.

     (b) RETURN was intended intended in the second two, and this exposes the fact
         that the part about having no NIL block in the first case was wrong.

     How shall we proceed in fixing this?

    Proposal (LOOP-NAMED-BLOCK-NIL:OVERRIDE):

     Clarify that if a NAMED clause appears in a LOOP form then no implicit NIL
     block is established by the LOOP form.  That is, confirm interpretation (a)
     and reject interpretation (b) from the Problem Description.

    Editorial Impact:

     The two bulleted items mentioned in the problem description need to be changed
     to refer to the special operator RETURN-FROM rather than the macro RETURN.

    Rationale:

     Gives the user greater control over the expansion of a LOOP form, permitting
     its use in places where it might not be desirable if a NIL block were always
     established.

    Examples:

     (block nil
       (loop named foo
         do (return 'success))
       'failure)
     -> SUCCESS

    Current Practice:

     Apple MCL 2.0b3 and Lucid 4.0 do not introduce an implicit NIL block if a
     NAMED clause is present in the LOOP form.

     Symbolics LOOP always introduces a NIL block, in addition to any block
     established for a NAMED clause.

    Discussion:

     Barrett:
      I think (a) (RETURN-FROM was meant, rather than RETURN) is preferable.  The
      main use I've found for explicitly named blocks is to avoid accidentally
      shadowing the intended receiver of a return-from when writing a wrapper
      macro.  If LOOP might always introduce a NIL block then you can't safely
      write such macros in terms of LOOP forms.

     GSB:
      I'm not sure how much help this is; I'll try to explain the history behind
      the current Symbolics implementation.

      My personal preference is for NAMED to use the named block instead of
      (rather than in addition to) a block named NIL.  Now, at the time I
      implemented the ANSI loop (and extensions) at Symbolics, I was under the
      impression that NAMED was not part of ANSI.  Maybe it had been dyked from
      the standard, maybe it was in the process of being removed (there was this
      minimalist pressure at the time).  JonL, you remember anything about this?
      I was basically working from the first draft that differed greatly from the
      prior Lucid documentation.

      Now, a semantic divergence occurred several years ago between the "NIL" and
      other "MIT" loop sources, and the Symbolics Zetalisp loop source, because
      someone (Me) got confused about the semantics of Zetalisp's named PROG.  In
      particular, I translated (prog name varlist ...) into roughly
      (block name (let varlist (tagbody ...))).  This is not a correct
      translation: Zetalisp named prog establishes that block name IN ADDITION TO
      a block named NIL.  Therefore when I did NAMED (as an extension to ANSI), I
      made it compatible with the existing (lisp machine) one, against my own
      preferences, because it was only an extension and the incompatibility is
      fairly subtle.

Copyright 1996-2005, LispWorks Ltd. All rights reserved.