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

[alarson@src.honeywell.com (Aaron Larson): Ballots, please]



     ----- Begin Forwarded Messages -----

Return-Path: <alarson@src.honeywell.com>
Received: from moon.src.honeywell.com ([129.30.1.10]) by Xerox.COM ; 07 JAN
89 19:26:09 PST
Return-Path: <alarson@src.honeywell.com>
Received: from pavo.SRC.Honeywell.COM 
	by moon.src.honeywell.com (5.59/smail2.6.3/06-17-88)
	id AA17213; Sat, 7 Jan 89 21:25:49 CST
Posted-Date: Sat, 7 Jan 89 21:24:16 CST
Received: by pavo.src.honeywell.com (3.2/SMI-3.2)
	id AA13383; Sat, 7 Jan 89 21:24:16 CST
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 89 21:24:16 CST
 From: alarson@src.honeywell.com (Aaron Larson)
Message-Id: <8901080324.AA13383@pavo.src.honeywell.com>
To: masinter.pa
In-Reply-To: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM's message of 6 Jan 89 00:23 PST
<890106-002339-193@Xerox>
Subject: Ballots, please

This bounced the first time so...

To: masinter.pa@xerox.COM
Subject: Re: ** BALLOT ** BALLOT ** BALLOT ** BALLOT **

The following is my ballot.  There are a couple of baked comments, mostly
notes to myself that I've not had time to check out throughly.  If they are
not clear or usefull, simply ignore them.  All my comments appear on a
single line at the side of the issue name, if this is a mess on your
system, let me know and I'll reformat.  Also, note that I did not copy
cl-cleanup. 

!
ARGUMENTS-UNDERSPECIFIED:SPECIFY                                Yes.
        Version 4, 21-Sep-88, Mailed 4 Dec 88           

ARRAY-TYPE-ELEMENT-TYPE-SEMANTICS:UNIFY-UPGRADING               Yes.
        Version 9, 31-Oct-88, Mailed 5 Dec 88

CLOSED-STREAM-OPERATIONS:ALLOW-INQUIRY                          Yes
        Version 5,  5-Dec-88, Mailed 5 Dec 88

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

DECLARATION-SCOPE:NO-HOISTING                                   Yes.
DECLARATION-SCOPE:LIMITED-HOISTING                              Prefer
no-hoisting, but if there was serious objection, would accept this one
also.
        Version 4, 15-Nov-88, Mailed 9-Dec-88

DECLARE-FUNCTION-AMBIGUITY:DELETE-FTYPE-ABBREVIATION            Yes. (I
thought this already passed?)
        Version 4,  5-Dec-88, Mailed  5-Dec-88

DECLARE-TYPE-FREE:ALLOW                                         Yes.
        Version 8, 7-Dec-88, Mailed 9-Dec-88

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

DEFPACKAGE:ADDITION                                             Yes.  I
believe that "should signal an error" should be "will signal an error".
        Version 7, 2-Nov-88, Mailed 5 Dec 88

DEFSTRUCT-CONSTRUCTOR-KEY-MIXTURE:ALLOW-KEY                     Yes
        Version 2, 21-Sep-88, Mailed 6 Oct 88

DEFSTRUCT-PRINT-FUNCTION-INHERITANCE:YES                        Yes
        Version 3, 7 Dec 88, Mailed 12-Dec-88

DEFSTRUCT-SLOTS-CONSTRAINTS-NAME:DUPLICATES-ERROR               Confused,
why string= on the names.  Does that mean that foo:a and bar:a cannot both
be slots in the same structure?  (check where accessors are interned).
        Version 4, 31-Oct-88, Mailed 12-Dec-88

DESCRIBE-INTERACTIVE:EXPLICITLY-VAGUE                           Abstain
DESCRIBE-INTERACTIVE:NO                                         Yes
        Version 4, 15-Nov-88    , Mailed 7-Dec-88

DOTTED-MACRO-FORMS:ALLOW                                        Yes
        Version 3, 15-Nov-88, Mailed 7-Dec-88

EQUAL-STRUCTURE:STATUS-QUO                                      Yes
        Version 5, 1-Oct-88, Mailed 8 Oct 88


EXIT-EXTENT:MINIMAL                                             No,
semantics are bad.
EXIT-EXTENT:MEDIUM                                              Yes
        Version 5, 12-Dec-88, Mailed 12-Dec-88

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

FIXNUM-NON-PORTABLE:TIGHTEN-DEFINITION                          No.  fixnum
is defined to be non portable, if portable code needs to be written, then
(integer low up) is the way to specify it.
FIXNUM-NON-PORTABLE:TIGHTEN-FIXNUM-TOSS-BIGNUM                  I agree
bignum is not usefull, but there are other non usefull aspects of the
language, and changing them now requires better justification.
        Version 4, 7-Dec-88, Mailed 12-Dec-88                   I don't
feel strongly about either of the above statements.

FORMAT-E-EXPONENT-SIGN:FORCE-SIGN                               Yes
        Version 2, 2 Oct 88, Mailed 6 Oct 88

FORMAT-PRETTY-PRINT:YES                                         Yes
        Version 7, 15 Dec 88, Mailed 7 Dec 88

FUNCTION-COMPOSITION:NEW-FUNCTIONS                              No.  Also,
there is an error in the proposal, the example for find-if specifies AND
and DISJOIN to be equivalent.  Not very "perspicuous".
FUNCTION-COMPOSITION:COMPLEMENT-AND-ALWAYS                      No
        Version 4, 12 Dec 88, Mailed 12 Dec 88

FUNCTION-DEFINITION:FUNCTION-SOURCE                             Abstain
        Version 2, 09-Dec-88    , Mailed 9 Dec 88

FUNCTION-TYPE-ARGUMENT-TYPE-SEMANTICS:RESTRICTIVE               Yes.
        Version 3, 7-Dec-88, Mailed  12-Dec-88

FUNCTION-TYPE-REST-LIST-ELEMENT:USE-ACTUAL-ARGUMENT-TYPE        No/Abstain
        Version 5, 14-Nov-88    , Mailed 8-Dec-88

GET-MACRO-CHARACTER-READTABLE:NIL-STANDARD                      Yes
        Version 2, 8 Dec 88, Mailed 8 Dec 88

HASH-TABLE-PACKAGE-GENERATORS:ADD-WITH-WRAPPER                  Abstain
        Version 7, 8-Dec-88, Mailed 9-Dec-88

HASH-TABLE-STABILITY:KEY-TRANSFORM-RESTRICTIONS                 ??, very
long.  Check SXHASH, I thought it was supposed to work accross different
invocations of lisp.  This appears to not be the case according to the
proposal.  Since the proposal really i


sn't changing the language (I hope), then it is really only a clarification
of existing status, but I'm not sure I understand the issue any more now
than before I read it.
        Version 1, 11-Nov-88    , Mailed 12 Dec 88

HASH-TABLE-TESTS:ADD-EQUALP                                     Yes
        Version 2, 8-Dec-88, Mailed 8 Dec 88

IN-PACKAGE-FUNCTIONALITY:SELECT-ONLY                            Yes,
conditionally on defpackage passing.
        Version 4, 12-Dec-88, Mailed 12-Dec-88

LAMBDA-FORM:NEW-MACRO                                           Abstain
        Version 4, 22-Nov-88, Mailed 8-Dec-88

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

LISP-SYMBOL-REDEFINITION:DISALLOW                               Yes
        Version 5, 22-Nov-88, Mailed 8 Dec 88

MAKE-PACKAGE-USE-DEFAULT:IMPLEMENTATION-DEPENDENT               yea sure.
People writing portable code have more subtle problems to worry about than
the default :USE list anyhow. 
        Version 2, 8 Oct 88, Mailed 12-Dec-88

MAPPING-DESTRUCTIVE-INTERACTION:EXPLICITLY-VAGUE                Yes
        Version 2, 09-Jun-88, Mailed 8 Oct 88

NTH-VALUE:ADD                                                   Abstain/No
        Version 4, 8-Dec-88, Mailed 8 Dec 88

PACKAGE-CLUTTER:REDUCE                                          yes.
        Version 6, 12-Dec-88, Mailed 12-Dec-881

PACKAGE-DELETION:NEW-FUNCTION                                   YES, (minor
editorial comment sent to cleanup (sorry bout that).
        Version 5, 21 nov 88, Mailed 8 Dec 88

PATHNAME-TYPE-UNSPECIFIC:NEW-TOKEN                              Yes
        Version 1 27-Jun-88, Mailed 7 Oct 88

PEEK-CHAR-READ-CHAR-ECHO:FIRST-READ-CHAR                        Yes
        Version 3, 8-Oct-88, Mailed 8 Oct 88

PRINT-CIRCLE-STRUCTURE:USER-FUNCTIONS-WORK                      Yes
        Version 3, 20 Sep 88, Mailed 8 Oct 88

PROCLAIM-LEXICAL:LG                                             If it can
be implemented easily then I'm for it.  (I thought symbol-value got the
global value, not the dynamic one??)
        Version 9, 8-Dec-88, Mailed 12-Dec-88

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

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

REQUIRE-PATHNAME-DEFAULTS:ELIMINATE                             Yes.
        Version 6, 9 Dec 88, mailed 09 Dec 88

REST-LIST-ALLOCATION:NEWLY-ALLOCATED
REST-LIST-ALLOCATION:MAY-SHARE                                  All three
stink.  No idea what to do.
REST-LIST-ALLOCATION:MUST-SHARE
        Version 3, 12-Dec-88, mailed 12-Dec-88

RETURN-VALUES-UNSPECIFIED:SPECIFY                               Yes
        Version 6,  9 Dec 88 mailed  9-Dec-88

ROOM-DEFAULT-ARGUMENT:NEW-VALUE                                 Abstain
        Version 1 12-Sep-88 mailed 8 Oct 88

[The following are mutually exclusive]
SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO:SETF-FUNCTIONS                           Much better
than before.  Inroducing (setf name) as names for functions is still ugly.
Questions such as what about macros??  Generalized function specs? etc.  I
would vote for it if nothing


 better comes along.
        Version 3, 4-Nov-87, mailed Nov 87
SETF-PLACES:ADD-SETF-FUNCTIONS                                  No, it
would require most code to have things like (flet
((#.(underlying-spec-to-name ..))) (defsetf...)) which is very gross.  It
would also be a very big portability issue, because implemen


tations with function specs would probably work without the defsetf, which
is fairly subtle.
        Version 1, 11-Nov-88, mailed 9-Dec-88

SETF-SUB-METHODS:DELAYED-ACCESS-STORES                          Yes
        Version 5, 12-Feb-88 mailed 8 Oct 88

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

STEP-ENVIRONMENT:CURRENT                                        Yes
        Version 3, 20-Jun-88, mailed  7 Oct 88

STREAM-ACCESS:ADD-TYPES-PREDICATES-ACCESSORS                    Yes, order
of perferense stream-access:add-types-accessors, then
add-types-predicates-accessors, I'm not fond of add-predicates-accessors,
but not stronly opposed.
        version 2, 30-Nov-88 mailed  9 Dec 88
        (expect amendment T => "true")

STREAM-INFO:ONE-DIMENSIONAL-FUNCTIONS                           Yes, Prefer
ammendment.  Also, I believe that the specification of the "basic
properties" makes no mention of the fact that NIL can be returned by any of
the functions.  This somewhat implies


 that they are required to return non nil values, although I believe the
proposal permits them too.
        Version 6, 30-Nov-88, mailed 9 dec 88
        expect amendment:
                LINE-WIDTH   ==> STREAM-LINE-WIDTH
                LINE-POSITION ==> STREAM-LINE-POSITION
                PRINTED-WIDTH ==> STREAM-STRING-WIDTH

SUBTYPEP-TOO-VAGUE:CLARIFY                                      Yes
        Version 4,  7-Oct-88, mailed 7 Oct 88 

SYMBOL-MACROLET-DECLARE:ALLOW                                   Yes (check
-SEMANTICS)
        Version 2,  9-Dec-88, mailed 9 Dec 88

SYMBOL-MACROLET-SEMANTICS:SPECIAL-FORM                          Yes (need
to think about it more, complex issue)
        Version 5, 30-Nov-88, mailed 9 Dec 88

TAGBODY-CONTENTS:FORBID-EXTENSION                               Yes
        Version 5, 9-Dec-88 mailed 9 Dec 88

TAILP-NIL:T                                                     Yes
        Version 5, 9-Dec-88, mailed 12-Dec-88

TEST-NOT-IF-NOT:FLUSH-ALL                                       No/Abstain
TEST-NOT-IF-NOT:FLUSH-TEST-NOT
        Version 3, 1 Dec 88 mailed 9 dec 

TYPE-OF-UNDERCONSTRAINED:ADD-CONSTRAINTS                        Yes
        Version 3, 12-Dec-88, mailed 12 Dec 88
        (some "bugs" in the proposal)

UNREAD-CHAR-AFTER-PEEK-CHAR:DONT-ALLOW                          Yes
        Version 2, 2-Dec-88, mailed 12-Dec-88

VARIABLE-LIST-ASYMMETRY:SYMMETRIZE                              No/Abstain.
Error checking gained by disallowing (var) is more important to me than
symmetry.  If anything (var) should be disallowed in all forms.
        Version 3, 08-Oct-88, mailed 9 Dec 88



     ----- End Forwarded Messages -----