[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: TAGBODY-CONTENTS (Version 3)
- To: peck@Sun.COM
- Subject: Re: Issue: TAGBODY-CONTENTS (Version 3)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Tue, 4 Oct 88 18:32 EDT
- Cc: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- In-reply-to: <8810042215.AA11605@denali.sun.com>
- Resent-date: Tue, 4 Oct 88 18:46 EDT
- Resent-from: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Resent-message-id: <881004184640.9.KMP@BOBOLINK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Resent-to: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
That's an interesting issue that at least I was not thinking of.
Since the current situation is technically ambiguous, I would
argue that the code you're citing was technically in error.
But by the same argument, so is the (GO NIL) case I was citing.
Since my guess is that there are many more cases of the situation
you describe than there are of (GO NIL), my inclination would be
to invert things.
Since I have to rewrite the proposal anyway to merge your useful
comments, I could just as well change it to make NIL a form and
not a tag.
If anyone has an opinion on this, they should speak now.