[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: FUNCTION-TYPE-ARGUMENT-TYPE-SEMANTICS
- To: vanroggen%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
- Subject: Issue: FUNCTION-TYPE-ARGUMENT-TYPE-SEMANTICS
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Wed, 7 Sep 88 21:23 EDT
- Cc: cl-cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: <8809071925.AA03511@decwrl.dec.com>
FUNCTION-TYPE-ARGUMENT-TYPE-SEMANTICS:RESTRICTIVE sounds good to me.
I have a small wording problem with it: I can't figure out what if
anything your proposal says about use of the FUNCTION type specifier
for discrimination. The problem description and conversion cost
sections sound as if you're proposing something, but the proposal
section doesn't mention it.