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


    Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1987  00:34 EDT
    From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>

    I support this proposal and have no problem with releasing it as-is,
    except for the form in which Moon's comments are included at the end.
    As it stands, this is one of those proposals that seems to say, "Let's
    do A, but then again we might want to do B."

    Unless Moon wants to push the alternative he raises, we should either
    drop this comment or say something like the following:

    "Moon pointed out that the Symbolics system currently does ..., and that
    this is an equally viable alternative.  However, the committee has
    decided to stick with the proposal as described above."

    If Moon strongly favors the alternative he describes, I could support
    that as well.  I just think we need to pick one or the other.

I don't strongly favor it.  I'm sure it was a case of our implementors doing
the best they could to slash their way through the ambiguities of the Common
Lisp book.  The way Larry dealt with this in version 3 of the proposal is
fine with me.  Note, however, that I cannot support version 3 of the proposal
because of the bug that was introduced in that version (discussed in
separate mail).