[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
DECLARE-MACROS (Version 2)
- To: Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Subject: DECLARE-MACROS (Version 2)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Mon, 9 Nov 87 22:55 EST
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- In-reply-to: <871109-155705-4230@Xerox>
Date: 9 Nov 87 15:56 PST
I responded to Moon's suggestions for wording correction. I added an
explicit endorsement at the end.
In the interest of shortening the issue, I removed the argument about
destructive MACROEXPAND hooks, which, I think, is more controversial
than the support that it raises.
As it happens, it's the issue which mattered the most to me personally --
just because it upsets my sense of order and makes me generally uneasy
when I think about it, I guess. But since the proposal is likely to pass
anyway and since the issue is still alluded to under adoption cost, I guess
I can live with this "simplification".
In order to avoid the controversy of what is a declaration, a declare
expression, a declare form, or a list whose car is DECLARE, I reworded
the proposal to be more explicit as to the intent, which is to negate
one specific paragraph in CLtL.
I run some risk of making things worse, at least in your eyes, so you
might want to cast yours on the PROPOSAL section and respond to me if
you are unhappy.
I'll endorse DECLARE-MACROS:FLUSH (Version 2) as is.