[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: DEFSTRUCT-SLOTS-CONSTRAINTS-NAME (Version 1)
- To: cl-cleanup@sail.stanford.edu
- Subject: Issue: DEFSTRUCT-SLOTS-CONSTRAINTS-NAME (Version 1)
- From: jpff%maths.bath.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK
- Date: Thu, 9 Jun 88 10:02:42 BST
- Cc: x3j13@sail.stanford.edu, masinter.pa@xerox.com
- In-reply-to: Masinter.pa@com.xerox's message of 8 Jun 88 15:07 PDT <880608-150925-3305@Xerox>
- Sender: jpff%maths.bath.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK
>>Rationale:
>>
>>Since it would be difficult to prescribe reasonable behavior for
>>this situation, it should be considered an error. Checking for it
>>would be costly so signaling this error is not required.
Sorry, I do not see the great cost. Surely defstruct is in effect a
declaration, and the cost of checking is small and the value great.
==John