[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: FUNCTION-TYPE (Version 6)
- To: CL-CLEANUP@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: Issue: FUNCTION-TYPE (Version 6)
- From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
- Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1987 18:02 EST
- Cc: willc%tekchips.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET
- In-reply-to: Msg of 23 Oct 1987 14:51-EDT from Masinter.pa at Xerox.COM
- Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
I (still) support FUNCTION-TYPE: STRICT-REDEFINITION.
A couple of minor comments on this presentation:
There needs to be a heading, "Rationale", I think, after point 8 of the
proposal proper. You want to clearly mark the transition from proposal
I still don't subscribe to Clinger's view of selective linking, but the
comments in this proposal do no harm.
Now that there is no discussion of a coercing version of the proposal,
some of the material in the discussion section has dangling pointers.
To fix this, just say at the start of the discussion section that one
option discussed earlier was similar to this one, but allowed FUNCALL,
etc. to take anything that can be coerced to a function.