[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
DO-SYMBOLS
- To: cl-cleanup@sail.stanford.edu
- Subject: DO-SYMBOLS
- From: Guy Steele <gls@Think.COM>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jun 87 10:31 EDT
- Cc: gls@think.com
I favor DO-SYMBOLS:ALLOWED, except that I would like to have
the following issue addressed: if duplicates are allowed, it
may admit an implementation that would not terminate in the
situation where each of two packages USEd the other? Do we
need a provision that DO-SYMBOLS must terminate, at least
for cases where the body does not aletr the packages involved?
--Guy
- Follow-Ups:
- DO-SYMBOLS
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>