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

Issue: SETF-SUB-METHODS (Version 5)

To: cperdue@Sun.COM (Cris Perdue)
Subject: Issue: SETF-SUB-METHODS (Version 5)
From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
Date: 9 Jan 89 18:16 PST
Cc: cl-cleanup@sail.stanford.edu

In your ballot, you said: 

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".

Can you help us? in what way is it wrong? what might be better? what
cases are unclear that we need to clarify?

Prev by Date: Re: Issue: REST-LIST-ALLOCATION (Version 3)
Next by Date: Re: Issue: TAGBODY-CONTENTS (Version 5)
Previous by thread: Re: Issue: SETF-SUB-METHODS (Version 5)
Next by thread: Re: Issue: SETF-SUB-METHODS (Version 5)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread