[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: DECLARE-TYPE-FREE (Version 5)
- To: cl-cleanup@sail.stanford.edu
- Subject: Issue: DECLARE-TYPE-FREE (Version 5)
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 6 Oct 88 23:44 EDT
- In-reply-to: <880930-213354-1766@Xerox>
DECLARE-TYPE-FREE:ALLOW in version 5 is okay with me except for
the formatting errors (presumably introduced by the Xerox mailer
line-folding) and the omission of the word "not" before "be" in
"it would be bad style to have inner declarations be subtypes of the
outer ones." I haven't asked him, but I think this missing word is what
really provoked Kent's comments.