[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: DECLARE-TYPE-FREE (Version 9)
- To: Jon L White <jonl@lucid.com>
- Subject: Re: Issue: DECLARE-TYPE-FREE (Version 9)
- From: David N Gray <Gray@DSG.csc.ti.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 89 10:10:01 CST
- Cc: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM, CL-Cleanup@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: Msg of Tue, 10 Jan 89 22:46:24 PST from Jon L White <jonl@lucid.com>
- Sender: GRAY@Kelvin.csc.ti.com
> I think you are right that the matter of semantics for nested declarations
> isn't adequately treated in the DECLARE-TYPE-FREE proposal. Sigh. In
> order to accommodate those who argued that mechanical code production
> might not be able to guarantee a true SUBTYPE relation for the inner
> declarations, I would go for a version that treated an inner declaration
> as if it were the intersection of the outter one. How about you?
Agreed. That's what version 6 of DECLARE-TYPE-FREE said:
Clarify that if nested type declarations refer to the same variable,
then the value of the variable must be a member of the intersection of
the declared types.