Re: FUNCTION-TYPE:STRICT-REDEFINITION proposal

[Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM]

"Sections 1a and 6 of this proposal refer to the PROCEDURE type.  I
assume this is really supposed to be the FUNCTION type?"

Yes, looks like a typo on my part.

"Also, I have a question about 1b, where it states that COMPILED-FUNCTION
is a subtype of FUNCTION.  Does this imply that it must be a *proper*
subtype?  For example, in the Lisp I've been working on sporadically for
my Atari, the interpreted version of (FUNCTION (LAMBDA ...)) returns a
compiled function object (it's a closure which will apply the lambda
expression to the function arguments).  Likewise I can conceive of
implementations which compile everything and don't have an "interpreter"
at all.  I think this needs to be clarified."

I intended not to require that it not be a "proper" subtype in the sense that
there may be no data items that are FUNCTIONP but not COMPILED-FUNCTIONP.

This can be clarified.