[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: REMF-DESTRUCTION-UNSPECIFIED (Version 2)
- To: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: Re: REMF-DESTRUCTION-UNSPECIFIED (Version 2)
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Wed, 4 Nov 87 17:47 EST
- In-reply-to: <871104-090136-1930@Xerox>, <19871103210016.9.DLA@KOYAANISQATSI.S4CC.Symbolics.COM>, <871103140614.4.KMP@RIO-DE-JANEIRO.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>, <871103-085958-2800@Xerox>, <19871103035217.7.DLA@KOYAANISQATSI.S4CC.Symbolics.COM>, <871102-182243-2120@Xerox>, <19871103004347.9.DLA@KOYAANISQATSI.S4CC.Symbolics.COM>, <871031-165117-6815@Xerox>, <FAHLMAN.12346756507.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>, <871030-130821-5980@Xerox>, <871030-114930-5868@Xerox>, The message of 30 Oct 87 14:49 EST from Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM, <871030-115402-5874@Xerox>, The message of 30 Oct 87 14:53 EST from Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM, <871030123158.7.KMP@RIO-DE-JANEIRO.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
I'm with DLA on this one. I support the MAKE-EXPLICITLY-VAGUE proposal.
A few of the details of that proposal may need refinement.
I think it would be contrary to the original intent of Common Lisp to
require all implementations to work exactly the same way on these
side-effects. Perhaps that original intent is wrong and should be
changed, but the side-effects of destructive list operations don't
seem to me to be the place in need of changing first, in that case.
I'm not sure if the Cleanup committee is the right one to be redefining
the goals of Common Lisp to raise the priority of painless portability
of programs that depend on currently unspecified behavior, perhaps
that should be some other committee or X3J13 as a whole.