Re: Issue: TRACE-FUNCTION-ONLY (Version 5)

[kempf%hplabsz@hplabs.HP.COM]

> Proposal form:

> We need to decide on the name of this proposal. The mail messages have
> had subject lines "TRACE Proposal" or "Issue: TRACE-FUNCTION-ONLY", but
> the body of the proposal has said TRACE-CLOS. Since I've been filing it
> under TRACE-FUNCTION-ONLY, I vote for changing the body to say
> TRACE-FUNCTION-ONLY. > (The proposal for dealing with SETF functions is
> called SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO, not SETF-CLOS.)

This change sounds fine.

> I'm a bit uneasy that some things appear under different categories than
> I would have placed them (most of the discussion under Rationale is not
> properly part of the rationale of this proposal but rather some
> additional considerations). The discussion of Conversion Cost seems to
> be a discussion of Adoption Cost instead. Conversion Cost is supposed to
> address the cost to users of converting their code to deal with a
> proposal, rather than to the Lisp system implementors. I think the
> current practice and extensions to TRACE employed by various
> implementations should at least be alluded to under Current Practice.

I have no problem with this.

> I don't know why the fact that this is a part of the environment rather
> than the language makes the burden of adoption cost any less.
> ("However, compatibility  with existing implementations seems less of an
> issue here, since TRACE is more a part of the environment.")

This was in response to a suggestion by Dave Moon, but I have no objection
if it is removed.

To save time, could you fold these changes into the final document? Thanks.

		jak