[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: TEST-NOT-IF-NOT (Version 1)
- To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@scrc-stony-brook.arpa>, CL-Cleanup@sail.stanford.edu
- Subject: Re: Issue: TEST-NOT-IF-NOT (Version 1)
- From: Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
- Date: Mon, 3 Oct 88 15:18:07 BST
- In-reply-to: Kent M Pitman's message of Sun, 2 Oct 88 21:34 EDT
> This issue is related to FUNCTION-COMPOSITION, but is not
> dependent on it.
>
> Pitman supports this change.
I support this change and FUNCTION-COMPOSITION as well.
I think the reasons for could be beefed up a bit by some of the
reasons from FUNCTION-COMPOSITION (e.g., that negation of the
test is rather a special case.)