[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: ADJUST-ARRAY-NOT-ADJUSTABLE (Version 3)
- To: Jon L White <jonl@lucid.com>
- Subject: Re: Issue: ADJUST-ARRAY-NOT-ADJUSTABLE (Version 3)
- From: Scott.Fahlman@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
- Date: Sat, 10 Dec 88 09:43:55 EST
- Cc: IIM@ECLA.USC.EDU, cl-cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 09 Dec 88 23:37:12 -0800. <8812100737.AA07690@bhopal>
Like JONL, I found it a bit irritating that this proposal was presented as
merely clarifying the "obvious" status quo. It is indeed the status quo
that certain vendors make all arrays adjustable; however, I don't think it
is universally agreed that this is altogether legal, given a
straightforward reading of CLtL.
But despite these reservations about how the issue is presented, I think
that something like this proposal is the right thing to do, so I support
the substance of the proposal. At this point, our goal should be to avoid
breaking huge amounts of existing code, while clarifying what is legal and
providing as much support and error checking as possible for people porting
code from one world to the other.
-- Scott