[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Issue: TAILP-NIL (version 3)
- To: KMP@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com
- Subject: RE: Issue: TAILP-NIL (version 3)
- From: vanroggen%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 88 20:20:17 PDT
Yes, I guess I endorse it also. Either way was fine with me; I was
just surprised to see the alternate definition after reading the
original proposal both in Guy's clarifications list and in old
Symbolics documentation.
I don't feel justified in writing down recommendations in the Discussion
section unless I've heard from "enough" people. So far most people seem
to have stayed away from this issue, as well as many others.
---Walter