[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FUNCTION-TYPE:STRICT-REDEFINITION proposal
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: FUNCTION-TYPE:STRICT-REDEFINITION proposal
- From: Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 19 Feb 88 14:17 PST
- Cc: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org (Sandra J Loosemore)'s message of Tue, 16 Feb 88 10:39:02 MST
"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.