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

Re: Issue: FUNCTION-COMPOSITION (Version 1)

To: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: Issue: FUNCTION-COMPOSITION (Version 1)
From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
Date: 2 Oct 88 14:32 PDT
In-reply-to: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>'s message of Thu, 23 Jun 88 17:11 EDT

At least today, I think that adding these functions would be a good idea if
we also remove the -IF-NOT functions. It would be a good idea given the
current awkwardness of preventing both a :TEST and :TEST-NOT. 

Are there other things that might easily be removed?

How do you feel about removing :TEST-NOT and -IF-NOT?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Issue: TEST-NOT-IF-NOT (Version 1)
  - From: Dan L. Pierson <pierson%mist@multimax.ARPA>
- Re: Issue: FUNCTION-COMPOSITION (Version 1)
  - From: Dan L. Pierson <pierson%mist@multimax.ARPA>
- Re: Issue: FUNCTION-COMPOSITION (Version 1)
  - From: Scott.Fahlman@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU

Prev by Date: Re: Issue: FUNCTION-COERCE-TIME (Version 2)
Next by Date: Re: Issue: FUNCTION-DEFINITION (Version 1)
Previous by thread: Re: Issue: FUNCTION-COMPOSITION (Version 1)
Next by thread: Re: Issue: TEST-NOT-IF-NOT (Version 1)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread