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


Although the discussion mentions some criticism from within the subcommitte,
I don't think it does full justice.  For the record, I would like to
repeat my grounds for dismissing this one, and also repeat your (Larry's)
negative review.

    Date: Fri, 21 Oct 88 20:30:15 PDT
    From: Jon L White <jonl>
    Subject: Issue: FUNCTION-COMPOSITION (Version 2)
    . . . 
    I say "gratuitious" because
      (1) no vendor/implementor supplies them now; thus it is not "existing 
	  practice" that needs to be standardized;
      (2) no fundamental problem has been exposed because of its lack; no
	  implementational headaches would be resolved, and few (if any) pleas
	  from the user community would be addressed;
      (3) no confusions exists among our community as to what these functionals
	  (or similar such features) mean; hence no need to clarify.

    Date: 7 Nov 88 15:13 PST
    From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
    Subject: Re: Issue: FUNCTION-COMPOSITION (Version 2)
    . . . 
    While it is useful to encourage the "functional style" of programming,
    these functions are *not nearly enough* to do that. That is, if you really
    wanted to build a useful library, you would find these few functions
    Extensions that no current vendor offers -- even those that have extensive
    sets of extensions to Common Lisp in their product -- should be viewed with
    great suspicion.

-- JonL --