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

Issue: DEFINITION-FUNCTIONS

To: Masinter.pa@XEROX.COM
Subject: Issue: DEFINITION-FUNCTIONS
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1987 23:00 EDT
Cc: cl-cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-reply-to: Msg of 9 Oct 1987 18:20-EDT from Masinter.pa at Xerox.COM
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU

    Date: Friday, 9 October 1987  18:20-EDT
    From: Masinter.pa at Xerox.COM
    To:   cl-cleanup at Sail.stanford.edu
    Re:   Issue: DEFINITION-FUNCTIONS

    I promised I would submit a proposal for "named definitions" for making
    documentation etc more extensible in Common Lisp.

Just going over some old mail and found this.  I'd like to see a lot
more motivation for all this machinery.  Does this really solve some
useful problem, or is it extensibility for its own sake?

-- Scott

Prev by Date: proposal for modifying behavior of REQUIRE
Next by Date: compile-time effects of top-level forms
Previous by thread: Issue: DEFINITION-FUNCTIONS
Next by thread: Re: Issue: DEFINITION-FUNCTIONS
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread