[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: * POLL * Issue: SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO (version 6)

To: masinter.pa@xerox.com
Subject: Re: *** POLL *** Issue: SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO (version 6)
From: Dan L. Pierson <pierson@mist.encore.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 88 14:26:32 EST
Cc: cl-cleanup@sail.stanford.edu
In-reply-to: Your message of 30 Nov 88 10:33:00 -0800. <881130-103422-2216@Xerox>

I think that two separate proposals are easier to understand.  We can
try to attach a joint cover letter for the vote to indicate that only
one should pass, but even that is probably unnecessary.

References:
- *** POLL *** Issue: SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO (version 6)
  - From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM

Prev by Date: Re: Issue: CLOSED-STREAM-OPERATIONS (Versions 3vR, 3R)
Next by Date: Issue: STREAM-ACCESS (version 2)
Previous by thread: *** POLL *** Issue: SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO (version 6)
Next by thread: Re: *** POLL *** Issue: SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO (version 6)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread