*DRAFT* issue status

[masinter.pa@Xerox.COM]

I sorted out the 7 ballots we've gotten so far, and tried to put together a
merged "status" list. I'm going thru my issue files once more
alphabetically, trying to get final or draft versions of things we want to
take with us -- not too much, I hope!

I haven't checked this, and I hope I didn't make too many mistakes.

Voters:
1 David N Gray (TI)
2 Kim A. Barrett (IIM)
3 David Bartley (TI)
4 Sandra J Loosemore (Utah)
5 David Moon (Symbolics)
6 Dan Pierson (Encore)
7 Chris Perdue (Sun)

In some cases I have changed a vote from Y to "I" (conditional) if the
comments said "Only if...." In a couple of cases I changed an "Abstain" to
"Conditional" where the associated comment warrented it.

ADJUST-ARRAY-NOT-ADJUSTABLE
Synopsis: ADJUST-ARRAY on array made with :ADJUSTABLE NIL: "an error"?
Version 3, 2-Dec-88
Status: rewording to avoid "Status Quo" debate?

ALIST-NIL
Version 4, 1-Oct-88
Status: Withdrawn, recommend editorial

APPEND-ATOM
Version 1, 6-Dec-88
Synopsis: atom case of APPEND (left out of APPEND-DOTTED)
Status: Ready for release?

APPLYHOOK-ENVIRONMENT
Version 1, 6-Jan-89
Synopsis: remove (useless) env argument to applyhook
Status: Ready for release?

ARGUMENTS-UNDERSPECIFIED:SPECIFY
Synopsis: Clarify various ranges missing from CLtL
Version 4, 21-Sep-88, Mailed 4 Dec 88
Vote: 1y2y3y4y5y6y6y
Status: part of "block" vote

ARRAY-TYPE-ELEMENT-TYPE-SEMANTICS:UNIFY-UPGRADING
Synopsis: What do array element-type declarations mean?
Version 9, 31-Oct-88, Mailed 5 Dec 88
Vote: 1y3y4y5y*6y6y
Comment: remove UPGRADED-ARRAY-ELEMENT-TYPE and UPGRADED-COMPLEX-PART-TYPE?

BACKQUOTE-COMMA-ATSIGN-DOT
Version 1, 22-Dec-88
Synopsis:  `(... ,@x) vs `(... . ,x). Same, or different?
Status: Two proposals. Connection w/APPEND-DOTTED? Needs edits.

CLOSED-STREAM-OPERATIONS:ALLOW-INQUIRY
Synopsis: What operations are legal on closed streams?
Version 5, 5-Dec-88, Mailed 5 Dec 88
Vote: 1y3y4y5y6y7y
뱉??
CLOSE-CONSTRUCTED-STREAMS
Synopsis: What does it mean to CLOSE a constructed stream?
Version 1, 6-Jan-89
Status: Too many proposals, not all there.

COERCE-INCOMPLETE (Version 2, 21-Nov-88)
Synopsis: Extend COERCE to handle default coercions? take an optional
FROM-TYPE?
Status: Not Ready

COMPILE-AND-LOAD-VERBOSITY
Synopsis: Need to clarify how much typeout is done when :VERBOSE is
specified to :COMPILE and :LOAD
Status: is there an issue?

COMPLEX-ATAN-BRANCH-CUT
Synopsis: tweak upper branch cut in ATAN formula

CONSTANT-SIDE-EFFECT (not submitted,???)
Synopsis: It is an error to do destructive operations on constants in code,
defconstant.
Status: In compiler?

CONTAGION-ON-NUMERICAL-COMPARISONS:TRANSITIVE
Version 1, 14-Sep-88, Mailed 6 Oct 88
Vote: 1n2y3n4y5y6y7y

DECLARATION-SCOPE:NO-HOISTING
Vote: 1n2n3n4y5n6y7i
DECLARATION-SCOPE:LIMITED-HOISTING
Vote: 1y2n3y4n5y6i7y
Version 4, 15-Nov-88, Mailed 9-Dec-88
Comment: "I really don't like NO-HOISTING because it is too imcompatible.
I think I
could live with LIMITED-HOISTING, but I'm unconvinced of the need for such
an
incompatible change.  All of the problem examples are easily solved by
simply
changing some of the variable names."
	6: "I support LIMITED-HOISTING if NO-HOISTING fails.  Either is better
than
nothing."
	7: "NO-HOISTING
If cases hoisted by 2nd alternatives are treated as errors and
limited-hoisting fails."

DECLARE-FUNCTION-AMBIGUITY:DELETE-FTYPE-ABBREVIATION
Vote: 1n3y4y5y*6y7y
Version 4,  5-Dec-88, Mailed  5-Dec-88
Comment: 5: "Moon is mildly opposed to this proposal,
DELETE-FTYPE-ABBREVIATION,
 because he sees it as gratuitously incompatible. Pitman favors the
 proposal because he thinks the benefit of making things regular will
 outweigh the costs."

DECLARE-TYPE-FREE:ALLOW
Vote: 1a3y4y5n*6n7y
Version 8, 7-Dec-88, Mailed 9-Dec-88
Comment: 5: DECLARE-TYPE-FREE:LEXICAL(9, unreleased) Yes.
	6: Y       Version 9, DECLARE-TYPE-FREE:ALLOW
	   N       Version 9, DECLARE-TYPE-FREE:LEXICAL

DECLARE-TYPE-USER-DEFINED
Synopsis: allow (declare (type x y z)) for all valid type specifies type

DECODE-UNIVERSAL-TIME-DAYLIGHT:LIKE-ENCODE
Vote: 1y3y4a5y6y7y
Version 2, 30-Sep-88, Mailed 6 Oct 88

DEFINITION-DELETE
Status: not submitted

DEFMACRO-BODY-LEXICAL-ENVIRONMENT
Synopsis: Allow DEFMACRO at non-top-level to capture environment. Not
submitted because "top level" wasn't defined.
Status: not submitted to cleanup; in compiler committee

DEFPACKAGE:ADDITION
Version 7, 2-Nov-88, Mailed 5 Dec 88
Vote: 1y3y4y5y*6y7i
Comment: 5: The semantics should be defined in terms of the existing
package
 functions rather than being redundantly described, in order to minimize
 the risk that DEFPACKAGE and the package functions will accidentally
 differ in some unintended way.
	7: "If we allow time for more experimental usage of this before adopting
it."

DEFSTRUCT-ACCESS-FUNCTIONS
Synopsis: defstruct accessors are proclaimed inline
Version 1, 5-Oct-88

DEFSTRUCT-CONSTRUCTOR-KEY-MIXTURE:ALLOW-KEY
Version 2, 21-Sep-88, Mailed 6 Oct 88
Vote: 1y2i3y4y5y6y7i
Comment: "The proposal should accomodate comments by IIM about some
keywords
 that were (presumably accidentally) not addressed "
	7: "If the proposal is fixed as suggested by Kim Barrett"

DEFSTRUCT-PRINT-FUNCTION-INHERITANCE:YES
Version 3, 7 Dec 88, Mailed 12-Dec-88
Vote: 1Y2y3y4y5y6y7y

DEFSTRUCT-REDEFINITION (Version 1)
Status: Not released; need more options.

DEFSTRUCT-SLOTS-CONSTRAINTS-NAME:DUPLICATES-ERROR
Version 4, 31-Oct-88, Mailed 12-Dec-88
Vote: 1Y2y3y4y5y6y7y

DELETE-FILE-NONEXISTENT 
Version 1, 5-Oct-88
Status: Needs work

DESCRIBE-INTERACTIVE:EXPLICITLY-VAGUE
Vote: 1n2a3n4n5y6n7n
DESCRIBE-INTERACTIVE:NO
Vote: 1y2y3y4y5n*6y7y
Version 4, 15-Nov-88, Mailed 7-Dec-88
Comment: "We prefer option EXPLICITLY-VAGUE.
 We would vote "Yes" for the NO option iff EXPLICITLY-VAGUE fails."

DOTTED-MACRO-FORMS:ALLOW
Vote: 1y2y3y4y5y6y7y
Version 3, 15-Nov-88, Mailed 7-Dec-88

DYNAMIC-EXTENT (Version 2, 15-Nov-88)
	Not Ready (?)

ELIMINATE-FORCED-CONSING
Version 3, 31-Aug-88
Status: Not Ready (?)

ENVIRONMENT-ENQUIRY
Synopsis:   The environment inquiry functions (pp447-448) don't return a
   value in consistent format across implementations. This makes
   them virtually useless. I would like to constrain the values
   enough so that implementors knew what to provide as return
   values, and provide some examples of intended uses.

ERROR-NOT-HANDLED
Version 1, 25-Sep-88

EQUAL-STRUCTURE:STATUS-QUO
Vote: 1y2i3y4a5i*6y7y
Version 5, 1-Oct-88, Mailed 8 Oct 88
Comment: "There are important technical comments about EQUALP which have
not
 been addressed, and which we feel must be addressed before this is
 brought to a serious vote. Ultimately, when those pending technical
 comments have been addressed, we expect to buy into this proposal."


EXIT-EXTENT:MINIMAL
Summary: What happens with non-local exits out of UNWIND-PROTECT cleanup
clauses?
Vote: 1a2n3a4n5n*6c7n
EXIT-EXTENT:MEDIUM
Vote: 1a2i3y4y5n*6c7y
Version 5, 12-Dec-88, Mailed 12-Dec-88
Status: serious mistakes as per moon, JonL says "not at this time"
	Sadly, we feel it is still premature to vote on this issue at this time.
 There are too many errors and inconsistencies in the writeup.


EXPT-RATIO:P.211
Vote: 1y2y4y5y6y7y
Version 3, 31-Oct-88, Mailed 7 Dec 88

FILE-LENGTH-PATHNAME 
Status: not submitted "Some people didn't seem to think this was
appropriate. No one seemed very interested in writing it up."

FILE-WRITE-DATE-IF-NOT-EXISTS
Synopsis: What does FILE-WRITE-DATE do if no such file?
Version: no proposal
Status:  "error signalling" committee

FIXNUM-NON-PORTABLE:TIGHTEN-DEFINITION
Vote: 1n2n3n4i5y6y7n
FIXNUM-NON-PORTABLE:TIGHTEN-FIXNUM-TOSS-BIGNUM
Vote: 1y2n3y4y5n6a7n
Version 4, 7-Dec-88, Mailed 12-Dec-88
Comment: "TOSS-FIXNUM-TOSS-BIGNUM?"
	4: "TIGHTEN-DEFINITION if TIGHTEN-FIXNUM-TOSS-BIGNUM is voted down"

FOLLOW-SYNONYM-STREAM
Status: Not Submitted; lost in STREAM-ACCESS

FORMAT-E-EXPONENT-SIGN:FORCE-SIGN
Vote: 1y2y3y4a5y6y7y
Version 2, 2 Oct 88, Mailed 6 Oct 88

FORMAT-NEGATIVE-PARAMETERS
Version: No proposal
Status: "KMP will incorporate in the list-of-signals part of the signal
proposal"

FORMAT-PRETTY-PRINT:YES
Vote: 1y2y3y4y5y6y7y
Version 7, 15 Dec 88, Mailed 7 Dec 88
Comments: "Although some fixes were made to accomodate ~R, some minor
lingering
 questions remain, which should be addressed under separate cover:
   - Is PRINT-OBJECT used to print things of type FLOAT in any cases
     where ~$, ~E, ~F, or ~G is used?
   - Can users write any methods (including :AROUND, :BEFORE, etc) for
     PRINT-OBJECT on type FLOAT?
 If the answers to both of these questions end up being "Yes", then it
 matters whether any of those format ops bind *PRINT-BASE* in order to
 achieve the effect prescribed by CLtL of always printing floats in 
 base 10. If the answer to either of those questions is "No", then
 it doesn't matter."


FORMAT-ROUNDING
Version 1, 5-Oct-88

FUNCTION-ARGUMENT-LIST
Synopsis: want way to get argument list

FUNCTION-COERCE-TIME (Version 2, 16-sep-88)
Not ready

FUNCTION-COMPOSITION:NEW-FUNCTIONS
Vote: 1n2n3n4n5y*6a7n
FUNCTION-COMPOSITION:COMPLEMENT-AND-ALWAYS
Vote: 1n2y3n4y5i*6y
Version 4, 12 Dec 88, Mailed 12 Dec 88
Comments: "Barry Margolin's complaint about the degenerate case of COMPOSE
should be
 fixed in both proposals."
	6: "We would vote "Yes" for COMPLEMENT-AND-ALWAYS iff NEW-FUNCTIONS
fails."

FUNCTION-DEFINITION:FUNCTION-SOURCE
Vote: 1y3y4y5y6y7y
Version 2, 09-Dec-88	, Mailed 9 Dec 88

FUNCTION-TYPE-ARGUMENT-TYPE-SEMANTICS:RESTRICTIVE
Synopsis: Change semantics of argument types in function declarations
Version 3, 7-Dec-88, Mailed  12-Dec-88
Vote: 1y2y3y4y5y6y7y

FUNCTION-TYPE-REST-LIST-ELEMENT:USE-ACTUAL-ARGUMENT-TYPE
Vote: 1y2n3y4a5y*6y7y
Version 5, 14-Nov-88, Mailed 8-Dec-88
Comments: "It turns out the list type specifier being contemplated wouldn't
have
 helped the case of alternating keyword value pairs because `repetitions'
 were not among the issues being addressed by those working on that topic."

GC-MESSAGES
Version 2, 14-Nov-88

GET-MACRO-CHARACTER-DISPATCHING
What does GET-MACRO-CHARACTER return for dispatching macros?

GET-MACRO-CHARACTER-READTABLE:NIL-STANDARD
Vote: 1y3y4y5y*6y7y
Version 2, 8 Dec 88, Mailed 8 Dec 88
Comments: "The proposal is ok, but the test case is wrong and should
definitely be
 fixed before a vote is called. EQness of successive results from 
 GET-MACRO-CHARACTER when given the same arguments is not guaranteed
 currently, and the new proposal does not suggest causing such a thing."

HASH-TABLE-ACCESS (Version 2, 13 Oct 88)
PROVIDE
Not ready

HASH-TABLE-GC (no proposal)
Will not be

HASH-TABLE-PACKAGE-GENERATORS:ADD-WITH-WRAPPER
Vote: 1a3a4n5y*6y7y
Version 7, 8-Dec-88, Mailed 9-Dec-88
Comments: "The test-package-iterator example has the values from the
generator in
 the wrong order. This should be fixed before the actual vote."

HASH-TABLE-PRINTED-REPRESENTATION (Version 2)
Not ready (new proposal from KMP?)

HASH-TABLE-STABILITY:KEY-TRANSFORM-RESTRICTIONS
Vote: 1a2y3y4c5n*6a7n
Version 1, 11-Nov-88	, Mailed 12 Dec 88
Discussion: "It isn't clear that this is necessary, but I won't oppose
	it if other people think it is important."
	"I agree with the sentiments expressed in the "additional comment"
    at the end.  I'd rather see a shorter proposal that deals only
    with destructive operations on keys."
	"We believe that it is not appropriate to vote on this issue at this
 time. Neither of us had the patience to figure out in enough detail
 what it was saying to have any confidence in our opinions on the issue.
 If there is really something important going on here, it should be
 possible to say briefly and in plain English what the problem being 
 addressed is and what the nature of the solution is. If, after a brief,
 intelligible, high level discussion of the issue, details must be
 presented to back up the high level goals, that would be fine."


HASH-TABLE-TESTS:ADD-EQUALP
Vote: 1y3y4n5y*6y7y
Version 2, 8-Dec-88, Mailed 8 Dec 88
Comment: "We would really like to see = hash tables, too."

IEEE-ATAN-BRANCH-CUT

IN-PACKAGE-FUNCTIONALITY:SELECT-ONLY
Vote: 1y2y3y4n5y6y7i
Version 4, 12-Dec-88, Mailed 12-Dec-88
Discussion: "Our "Yes" vote is contingent on the DEFPACKAGE passing."
	"If we allow time for more experimental use of DEFPACKAGE before
adopting this."

IN-SYNTAX
Synopsis: IN-PACKAGE for readtables
Version 1, 21-Oct-88

INPUT-STREAM-P-CLOSED
Version: not submitted
Synopsis: What do INPUT-STREAM-P and OUTPUT-STREAM-P do on closed streams?

INPUT-STREAM-P-EXAMPLE
Version 1, 26-Oct-88

LAMBDA-FORM:NEW-MACRO
Vote: 1y3y4n5y6a7n
Version 4, 22-Nov-88, Mailed 8-Dec-88

LAMBDA-LIST-DUPLICATES
withdrawn

LCM-NO-ARGUMENTS:1
Vote: 1y3y4y5y6y7y
Version 1, 17 Oct 88, Mailed 8 Dec 88

LEAST-POSITIVE-SINGLE-FLOAT-NORMALIZATION 
Status: Not yet submitted
Synopsis: should LEAST-POSITIVE- and MOST-POSITIVE-XXX-FLOAT numbers
include denormalized ones in those implementations that admit them?

LET-TOP-LEVEL
Synopsis: What's top level?
Status:  => clcompiler

LISP-PACKAGE-NAME
Synopsis: change LISP to COMMON-LISP to avoid CLtL confusion
Version 1, 22 Dec 88

LISP-SYMBOL-REDEFINITION:DISALLOW
Vote: 1y3y4y5i6y7n
Version 5, 22-Nov-88, Mailed 8 Dec 88
Comment: "We're reluctant to include the paragraph about permitting (DEFVAR
CAR ...).
 Our vote is "Yes" only if the paragraph suggesting this is permissible
 is removed."

LIST-TYPE-SPECIFIER (Version 1)
	no new version?

LOAD-OBJECTS
Version 1, 2-Jan-89
Synopsis: "Provide a way to allow defstruct/defclass objects in compiled
files"
LOAD-TIME-EVAL 
Synopsis: #, semantics not in read macro
Status: => clcompiler

LOAD-TRUENAME

MAKE-CONCATENATED-STREAM-EXAMPLE
Version 1, 26-Oct-88

MAKE-PACKAGE-USE-DEFAULT:IMPLEMENTATION-DEPENDENT
Vote: 1y2n3y4n5n*6y7n
Version 2, 8 Oct 88, Mailed 12-Dec-88
Comment: lengthy

MAKE-STRING-FILL-POINTER
Version 1, 20-Oct-88

MAPPING-DESTRUCTIVE-INTERACTION:EXPLICITLY-VAGUE
Synopsis: [don't] define interaction of DELETE on MAPCAR'd list.
Vote: 1y2y3y4y5y6y7y
Version 2, 09-Jun-88, Mailed 8 Oct 88

NTH-VALUE:ADD
Vote: 1a3n4n5y*6y7y
Version 4, 8-Dec-88, Mailed 8 Dec 88
Discussion: "OK, but of marginal value."
	The proposal should clarify the treatment of n when it is out of range.
 Any non-negative integer index values should be permitted.
 NIL should result if the index argument is too large.

OUTPUT-STREAM-P-EXAMPLE
Version 1, 26-Oct-88

PACKAGE-CLUTTER:REDUCE
Vote: 1y2y3y4i5y6y7y
Version 6, 12-Dec-88, Mailed 12-Dec-881
Discussion: stronger on properties; bugs
	"I don't see any need to restrict the use of internal symbols in
    the LISP package as property indicators.  Otherwise I support the
    proposal."

PACKAGE-DELETION:NEW-FUNCTION
Vote: 1y3y4a5y6y7a
Version 5, 21 nov 88, Mailed 8 Dec 88
minor glitches

PACKAGE-FUNCTION-CONSISTENCY
Version 1, 21-Oct-88

PATHNAME-CANONICAL-TYPE
Status: => "pathname" committee

PATHNAME-COMPONENT-CASE
Status: => "pathname" committee

PATHNAME-LOGICAL
Status: => "pathname" committee

PATHNAME-PRINT-READ
Synopsis: Print pathnames like #P"asdf"?
Version 1, 21-Oct-88
Status: expand current practice?

PATHNAME-SUBDIRECTORY-LIST
Synopsis: How to deal with subdirectory structures in pathname functions
Status: => "pathname" committee

PATHNAME-SYNTAX-ERROR-TIME
Status: => "pathname" committee

PATHNAME-TYPE-UNSPECIFIC:NEW-TOKEN
Vote: 1y3y4i5y6y7n
Version 1 27-Jun-88, Mailed 7 Oct 88
Comment: ":UNSPECIFIC should be legal in all pathname fields, not just in
the
    type field."
	"No Unix convention I know of requires this new concept.  Perhaps a
couple of good examples would convince me."

PATHNAME-WILD
Status: => "pathname" committee

PATHNAME-UNSPECIFIC-COMPONENT
Synopsis: How to deal with logical devices, :unspecific components, etc in
pathname functions
Status: PATHNAME-TYPE-UNSPECIFIC handled part, rest not yet submitted =>
"pathname"

PEEK-CHAR-READ-CHAR-ECHO:FIRST-READ-CHAR
Synopsis: interaction between PEEK-CHAR, READ-CHAR and streams made by
MAKE-ECHO-STREAM
Vote: 1y2y3y4n5y*6y7y
Version 3, 8-Oct-88, Mailed 8 Oct 88
Comment: "All metastreams must now support PEEK-CHAR directly..."
	"This proposal seems to be in conflict with the rationale for
    issue UNREAD-CHAR-AFTER-PEEK-CHAR, which is to legitimize
    implementing PEEK-CHAR as READ-CHAR/UNREAD-CHAR."
	"There are some typos in this proposal that need to be corrected.
 Also, IIM asked for a clarification which seemed reasonable to us."

PRINT-CIRCLE-SHARED
Status: Not submitted
Synopsis: does *PRINT-CIRCLE* cause shared structure to print with #=?

PRINT-CIRCLE-STRUCTURE:USER-FUNCTIONS-WORK
Vote: 1y3y4i5y6y7y
Version 3, 20 Sep 88, Mailed 8 Oct 88
Comment: This proposal would be OK if it specified that circularity only
    had to be detected for objects that are contained in slots of the
    structure, not random objects that are printed out by the structure
    print function.  Rationale:  an obvious way to handle circular
    printing is to traverse the structure to detect circularities before
    printing anything."

PROCLAIM-LEXICAL:LG
Synopsis: add LEXICAL proclaimation
Vote: 1n3c4n5y*6y7n
Version 9, 8-Dec-88, Mailed 12-Dec-88
Discussion: change "Clarify" => "Define"
	"This sounds like basically a good idea, but there appears
	to be insufficient experience with actually implementing
	and using it for it to be ready for standardization."
	"I favor this in principle, but I want some discussion to
	ensure that we're all talking about the same thing."
	"I don't have any fundamental complaint with this issue, but I believe 
    we need more experience with this feature before it should be 
    standardized."
	"The proposal might want to define the status of unproclaimed free
variables.
 Presumably, we should say that they are an error, and we should encourage
 compilers to issue a warning."
	"I don't believe in the reality of a separate "dynamic" environment,
don't believe it makes sense to support rapid access to
Globals on stock hardware, and don't understand what Scheme practices
don't work in Common Lisp.  Perhaps I can be dissuaded about some or
all of these opinions."

PROCLAIM-SCOPE
Status: => clcompiler

PROMPT-FOR
Status: awaiting resubmission

RANGE-OF-COUNT-KEYWORD:NIL-OR-INTEGER
Vote: 1y3y4y5y6y7y
Version 3, 9-Oct-88, Mailed 14-Oct-88

RANGE-OF-START-AND-END-PARAMETERS:INTEGER-AND-INTEGER-NIL
Vote: 1y2y3y4y5y6y7y
Version 1, 14-Sep-88, Mailed 7 Oct 88

READ-CASE-SENSITIVITY
Synopsis: Allow readtables to be case sensitive
Status: Not submitted

READ-DELIMITED-LIST-EOF
Synopsis: eof in read deliminted list signals an error

REMF-DESTRUCTION-UNSPECIFIED
Synopsis: Specification of side-effect behavior in CL

REMF-MULTIPLE 
Synopsis: What does REMF do if it sees more than one INDICATOR?
Status: Not ready

REQUIRE-PATHNAME-DEFAULTS:ELIMINATE
Vote: 1y2y3y4y5y6y7n
Version 6, 9 Dec 88, mailed 09 Dec 88
Comment: "Deprecate instead.  Do not remove from the Lisp package."

REST-LIST-ALLOCATION:NEWLY-ALLOCATED
Vote: 1n2n3n4n5n6n7n
REST-LIST-ALLOCATION:MAY-SHARE
Vote: 1y2y3y4y5y6y7y
REST-LIST-ALLOCATION:MUST-SHARE
Vote: 1n2n3n4n5n6n7n
Version 3, 12-Dec-88, mailed 12-Dec-88
Discussion: Add a new kind of declaration


REST-LIST-EXTENT
Status: incorporated in issue DYNAMIC-EXTENT

RETURN-VALUES-UNSPECIFIED:SPECIFY
Vote: 1y3y4y5y6y
Version 6,  9 Dec 88 mailed  9-Dec-88

ROOM-DEFAULT-ARGUMENT:NEW-VALUE
Vote: 1y2y3y4a5y6y
Version 1 12-Sep-88 mailed 8 Oct 88
Comment: "I liked KMP's suggestion of defining additional synonyms"


[The following are mutually exclusive]
SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO:SETF-FUNCTIONS
Vote: 1y3y4n5n*6y7i
Version 3, 4-Nov-87, mailed Nov 87
Comment: "We think it's premature to vote on this issue at this time.
 We suggest that a better proposal, unifying this issue with SETF-PLACES,
 should be produced either before or during the upcoming meeting."
	7: "If SETF-PLACES:ADD-SETF-FUNCTIONS is deemed unsatisfactory by X3J13"

SETF-MULTIPLE-STORE-VARIABLES
Synopsis: Allow multiple "places" in SETF stores
Version 1, 5-Dec-88

SETF-PLACES:ADD-SETF-FUNCTIONS
Vote: 1n3n4i5n*6i7y
Version 1, 11-Nov-88, mailed 9-Dec-88
Discussion: other options? (Comments)
"We think it's premature to vote on this issue at this time.
 We suggest that a better proposal, unifying this issue with 
 SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO, should be produced either before or during
 the upcoming meeting."

SETF-SUB-METHODS:DELAYED-ACCESS-STORES
Synopsis: more careful definition of order of evaluation inside (SETF (GETF
...) ...) 
Vote: 1a2y4y5y6y7n
Version 5, 12-Feb-88 mailed 8 Oct 88
	7: "This does not seem to be the "right" choice of semantics, and I
believe that the presentation of the proposal needs substantial work
even if it is "right".


SEQUENCE-FUNCTIONS-EXCLUDE-ARRAYS
Version 6, 06-Oct-88
Status: New version scales down rejected version

SINGLE-FLOAT-NON-PORTABLE
Status: Not yet submitted
Synopsis: should single-float and double-float be removed from the
standard?

SPECIAL-TYPE-SHADOWING
Synopsis: intersection of types when proclaimed special has local type
declaration
Status: superceded by DECLARE-TYPE-FREE?

SPECIAL-VARIABLE-TEST
Status: "On hold pending SYNTACTIC-ENVIRONMENT-ACCESS"

STANDARD-INPUT-INITIAL-BINDING:DEFINED-CONTRACTS
Vote: 2y3y4y5y6y7y
Version 8, 8 Jul 88, Mailed 7 Oct 88

STANDARD-VALUE
Synopsis: specify way to communicate from user programs to REP loops when
binding is "temporary"
Version 1, 21-Oct-88

STEP-ENVIRONMENT:CURRENT
Vote: 1y2c3y4y5i6y7y
Version 3, 20-Jun-88, mailed  7 Oct 88
Comment: "We don't understand
    "it is acceptable for an implementation to interactively step
     through only those parts of the evaluation that are interpreted."
 There are a variety of ways to clarify this that would satisfy us.
 Still, this must be clarified so we can know for sure what we're voting
 on and have some confidence that other implementors will interpret it
 in the same way as we have before we can vote "Yes".


STREAM-ACCESS:ADD-TYPES-PREDICATES-ACCESSORS
Vote: 1n3n4i5n*6y
STREAM-ACCESS:ADD-TYPES-ACCESSORS
Vote: 1n3n4?5y*6?
STREAM-ACCESS:ADD-PREDICATES-ACCESSORS
Vote: 1y3y4?5n*6?
version 2, 30-Nov-88 mailed  9 Dec 88
Status: expect amendment T => "true"
Comment: "Although requiring types instead of predicates forces the
implementation
 of these streams as separate types, there is no obvious serious problem
 which can result from that, and it leaves open the possibility of writing
 methods on particular types -- if they are also classes -- are they? The
 proposal should spell this out.
 Having both the types and the predicates is unnecessary clutter.
 Omitting the predicates makes for less overhead with no lost
functionality.

STREAM-CAPABILITIES
Status: => "pathname" committee

STREAM-DEFINITION-BY-USER
Synopsis: Need a way to define user-defined streams.

STREAM-ELEMENT-TYPE-EXAMPLES
Status: ?? missing proposal

STREAM-INFO:ONE-DIMENSIONAL-FUNCTIONS
Vote: 1y3y4y5i*6y7y
Version 6, 30-Nov-88, mailed 9 dec 88
Status: expect amendment:
		LINE-WIDTH   ==> STREAM-LINE-WIDTH
		LINE-POSITION ==> STREAM-LINE-POSITION
		PRINTED-WIDTH ==> STREAM-STRING-WIDTH
Comment: 5: We vote "Yes" only if the name-changing amendment mentioned in
the mail passes.
 Also, the writeup incorrectly states that Newline is not a standard
character;
 Perhaps someone has confused "standard" with "graphic".


SUBTYPEP-TOO-VAGUE:CLARIFY
Vote: 1y2y3y5y*6y7y
Version 4,  7-Oct-88, mailed 7 Oct 88
Comment: "Some minor worry about DECLARE-FUNCTION-AMBIGUITY here since the
proposal
 mentions the list form of the FUNCTION declaration. This is a complicated
issue and we have not had time to think it through  as fully as we might
like to have. Still, insofar as we have studied it,  it looks ok."

SYMBOL-MACROFLET
Version 1
???

SYMBOL-MACROLET-DECLARE:ALLOW
Vote: 1y3y4i5y6y7y
Version 2,  9-Dec-88, mailed 9 Dec 88
Comment: 4: "Only if SYMBOL-MACROLET-SEMANTICS passes"

SYMBOL-MACROLET-SEMANTICS:SPECIAL-FORM
Vote: 1y2y3y4a5y6y7y
Version 5, 30-Nov-88, mailed 9 Dec 88

SYNTACTIC-ENVIRONMENT-ACCESS (Version 1)
=> clcompiler

TAGBODY-CONTENTS:FORBID-EXTENSION
Vote: 1y3y4y5i6y7y
Version 5, 9-Dec-88 mailed 9 Dec 88
Comment: "The term "data element" is too vague in paragraph 2 of the
proposal.
 Our "Yes" vote is contingent on correcting this.  Moon doesn't really like
allowing ignored frobs other than expressions  and tags, but is willing to
live with the current proposal."

TAIL-RECURSION-OPTIMIZATION (Version 2)
Status: Not Ready

TAILP-NIL:T
Synopsis: Operation of TAILP given NIL
Vote: 1y2y3y4y5y*6y7a
Version 5, 9-Dec-88, mailed 12-Dec-88
Discussion: Current practice is wrong. Expand to LDIFF? Add :TEST?
	"The EQ -> EQL change at the last minute means this is not Genera current
 practice, contrary to the current practice section."

TEST-NOT-IF-NOT:FLUSH-ALL
Vote: 1n3n4y5y*6a7n*
TEST-NOT-IF-NOT:FLUSH-TEST-NOT
Vote: 1n3n4i5y*6a7y
Version 3, 1 Dec 88 mailed 9 dec 
Comment: "Unnecessary incompatible change."
	4: "Flushing some is better than not flushing all"
	5: "We are mostly happy with either of these proposals, with slight 
 preference to FLUSH-ALL. However, our "Yes" vote is contingent on:
   - changing "remove" to "deprecate", and coming up with a
     suitable policy for deprecation which allows a comfortable
     transition from current practice.
   - either of the FUNCTION-COMPOSITION proposals passing.
	7: Perhaps deprecate these instead.  They need to remain in the LISP
package.  The functionality of REMOVE-IF-NOT is needed, perhaps use
the name KEEP-IF."
"

THE-AMBIGUITY
Version 1, 21-Oct-88
Status: typo

TRACE-ERROR
Version 1
Status: withdrawn?

TRACE-FUNCTION-ONLY (withdrwan)

TRUENAME-SYNTAX-ONLY
Status: => "pathname" committee

TYPE-OF-UNDERCONSTRAINED:ADD-CONSTRAINTS
Vote: 1y2c3y4y5i6y7i
Version 3, 12-Dec-88, mailed 12 Dec 88
Discussion: some "bugs" in the proposal
 5: "Our "Yes" vote is contingent on the following issues being addressed:
  - RANDOM-STATE should be added to the list of built-in types.
  - (subtypep (type-of x) (class-of x)) => T T for all x, seems to have
    been intended but is not actually said. It should be added.
  - The implementation recommendation in the discussion about returning
    only portable type specifiers should be discarded.
  - Shouldn't this refer to classes with proper names rather than just
    ones with names?
7: If the language in paragraph (a) is made clear.  I can't tell which
"quantifiers" are intended or over what scope in the presentation.



TYPE-SPECIFIER-PREDICATE
Status: Not yet submitted
Synopsis: "Add a new function TYPE-SPECIFIER-P that is true of valid type
   specifiers and false of all other Lisp objects.  Note that the use of
   DEFSTRUCT and DEFTYPE can change the behavior of TYPE-SPECIFIER-P over
   time."

UNDEFINED-VARIABLES-AND-FUNCTIONS
Version 1, 29-Nov-88

UNREAD-CHAR-AFTER-PEEK-CHAR:DONT-ALLOW
Vote: 1y2y3y4y5y6y7y
Version 2, 2-Dec-88, mailed 12-Dec-88

UNWIND-PROTECT-NON-LOCAL-EXIT
Status: renamed to EXIT-EXTENT

VARIABLE-LIST-ASYMMETRY:SYMMETRIZE
Vote: 1y3y4y5y6y7y
Version 3, 08-Oct-88, mailed 9 Dec 88

WRITE-NEWLINE
Status: Not submitted