[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Issue: DECLARE-TYPE-FREE (Version 1)

To: JonL@Lucid.COM, Gray@DSG.CSC.TI.COM
Subject: Issue: DECLARE-TYPE-FREE (Version 1)
From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 88 20:29 EDT
Cc: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-reply-to: <8809242332.AA13708@bhopal>

Fyi, I didn't mean to suggest that that program was good style. I was just
trying to answer Moon's "Is it necessary to be explicit?" query by
demonstrating that it was necessary.

Follow-Ups:
- Issue: DECLARE-TYPE-FREE (Version 1)
  - From: Jon L White <jonl@lucid.com>

References:
- Issue: DECLARE-TYPE-FREE (Version 1)
  - From: Jon L White <jonl@lucid.com>

Prev by Date: Issue: DECLARE-TYPE-FREE (Version 1)
Next by Date: Issue: PROCLAIM-LEXICAL (Version 7)
Previous by thread: Issue: DECLARE-TYPE-FREE (Version 1)
Next by thread: Issue: DECLARE-TYPE-FREE (Version 1)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread