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

Issue: REQUIRE-PATHNAME-DEFAULTS

To: sandra%orion@cs.utah.edu, cl-cleanup@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Issue: REQUIRE-PATHNAME-DEFAULTS
From: Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
Date: 22 Oct 87 17:38 PDT
In-reply-to: sandra%orion@cs.utah.edu (Sandra J Loosemore)'s message of Fri, 16 Oct 87 12:06:51 MDT

 I certainly would like to see REQUIRE mean something, although I'm a
little uneasy about making it have such an operative rather than
semantic definition.

Be that as it may, I'm willing to report it out as endorsed.

 I take GLS's recent message as an indication that some proposal is
called for here, although I don't know whether he likes this one.

Are there any other opinions, or can we release it?

Follow-Ups:
- Issue: REQUIRE-PATHNAME-DEFAULTS
  - From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

Prev by Date: Re: Issue: DEFINITION-FUNCTIONS
Next by Date: Re: SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO (Version 1)
Previous by thread: administrivia
Next by thread: Issue: REQUIRE-PATHNAME-DEFAULTS
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread