Issue: FUNCTION-COMPOSITION (Version 2)

[Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>]

My notes from Fairfax meeting...

Cleanup meeting:

 RPG opposed the proposal. Pitman asked if he could say why in just
 a couple of setences. RPG said "2 sentences? ok... I don't like it.
 I really don't."

 We decided to try to get a sense of X3J13 on this when it came up
 at the meeting...

X3J13 meeting:

 Greenblatt: If adopted, maybe use less "generic" names.

 JonL: Gratuitous.
       Also, no existing implementations have this.
       [He didn't seem willing to count the T language. -kmp]

 RPG: Ditto.

 Haflich: This woudl encourage good optimizations.

 Masinter: A no vote on this is not a vote against functional
 	   programming.

 KMP: That's nonsense. Of course it is. Passing this proposal would
      encourage a particular style of programming, and failing to
      pass it would (in the absence of other compensating proposals)
      discourage it.