[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: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Sun, 8 Nov 87 16:34 EST
- Cc: willc%tekchips.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET
- In-reply-to: <871023-115213-1106@Xerox>
On the whole I favor this proposal, provided the corrections noted
in Fahlman's message of 25 October are made.
However I continue to dislike the coupling of the proposal to remove the
implicit coercion from FUNCALL, to the proposal to tighten up the
definition of the FUNCTION type. In my opinion this coupling is
logically unnecessary and has been done only for parliamentary reasons,
to prevent people from voting against removing the implicit coercion.
This coupling of two proposals prevents us from getting an unbiased poll
of X3J13's opinion on the tradeoff between the incompatible change and
the language simplification associated with removing the coercion.