[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue Status
- To: cl-cleanup@sail.stanford.edu
- Subject: Issue Status
- From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 12 Jan 89 17:33 PST
I'm going to have to stop if I'm going to get copies made & ready for
shipping to the meeting.
We will have to decide on which issues we will present to X3J13 for voting
in which order. I propose the following, in order:
* "block vote" only those for which there is no dissent (all Y) or no
comments on released proposal.
* Separate vote on all "ballot" issues for which no comments were recieved
(even if some N votes.)
* Discussion, possibly amendments, for "old" issues for which there is no
controversy but minor changes are necessary.
* Discussion and possibly voting (if no 2-week rule) on "new" issues we
believe are not controversial.
* Discussion of issues with great controversy or some opinion that "we're
not ready to vote on this yet".
I'm thinking about proposing that we should add an Appendix to the Draft
Standard which lists the pending issues; e.g., for each issue which is not
resolved by the last hour reserved for "cleanup", we should have a simple
majority vote / no discussion about whether the issue should be "dropped."
!
Issue status:
who mailed the vote:
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)
8 Aaron Larson (Honeywell)
9 Kathy Chapman (DEC)
10 Gail Zacharias (Apple)
11 Neil Goldman (ISI)
12 Barry Margolin (TM)
13 Jeff Dalton (U Edinburgh)
14 JonL White (Lucid)
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 indicated that as the intent. I
have frequently paraphrased comments beyond recognition. The "Comments" are
more reminders to me than to you.I didn't mark which ballots were
"official". I think I missed or miscounted some votes, but I don't think it
is crucial.
ADJUST-ARRAY-NOT-ADJUSTABLE
Synopsis: ADJUST-ARRAY on array made with :ADJUSTABLE NIL: "an error"?
Version 4, 11-Jan-89, Released 12-Jan-89
Status: new/vote?
ALIST-NIL
Version 4, 1-Oct-88
Status: Withdrawn, recommend editorial
APPEND-ATOM
Synopsis: atom case of APPEND (left out of APPEND-DOTTED)
Version 1, 6-Dec-88, Released 12-Jan-89
Status: new/vote?
APPLYHOOK-ENVIRONMENT
Synopsis: remove (useless) env argument to applyhook
Version 2, 10-Jan-89, Released 10-Jan-89
Comments: require APPLYHOOK to accept optional ignored 3rd arg?
make explicit *APPLYHOOK* value will only get two arguments
Status: New/vote?
ARGUMENTS-UNDERSPECIFIED
Synopsis: Clarify various ranges missing from CLtL
Version 4, 21-Sep-88, Released 4 Dec 88
Vote: 1y2y3y4y5y6y7y8y9y10y11y12y13y14y SPECIFY
Status: block vote
ARRAY-TYPE-ELEMENT-TYPE-SEMANTICS
Synopsis: What do array element-type declarations mean?
Version 9, 31-Oct-88, Released 5 Dec 88
Vote: 1y3y4y5y6y7y8y9y10i11y12y13y14y UNIFY-UPGRADING
Comments: 10: if remove UPGRADED-ARRAY-ELEMENT-TYPE and
UPGRADED-COMPLEX-PART-TYPE
Discussion: Must upgrading be uniform?
Status: separate vote; amendment?
BACKQUOTE-COMMA-ATSIGN-DOT
Synopsis: `(... ,@x) vs `(... . ,x). Same, or different?
Version 1, 22-Dec-88, DRAFT released
Comments: proposals INTERCHANGABLE and DIVERGENT
comments not in writeup
Status: new/vote?
CLOSED-STREAM-OPERATIONS
Version 5, 5-Dec-88, Released 5 Dec 88
Synopsis: What operations are legal on closed streams?
Vote: 1y3y4y5y6y7y8y9y10y11y12y13y14y ALLOW-INQUIRY
Comments: 10: Want to spec value for CLOSE on closed streams. Why
undefined?
Status: vote separate
뱉??
CLOSE-CONSTRUCTED-STREAMS
Synopsis: What does it mean to CLOSE a constructed stream?
Version 2, 12-Jan-89, Released 12-Jan-89
Comments: Too many proposals
Status: new/vote?
COERCE-INCOMPLETE
Synopsis: Extend COERCE to handle default coercions? take an optional
FROM-TYPE?
Version 2, 21-Nov-88
Status: Substantial discussion, little convergence
needs new version
COMPILE-AND-LOAD-VERBOSITY
Synopsis: how much typeout when :VERBOSE given to COMPILE and LOAD
Comment: is there an issue?
Status: not submitted?
COMPLEX-ATAN-BRANCH-CUT
Synopsis: tweak upper branch cut in ATAN formula
Version 1, 13-Dec-88, Released 10-Jan-89
Status: new/vote?
CONSTANT-SIDE-EFFECT
Synopsis: It is an error to do destructive operations on constants in code,
defconstant.
Version: not submitted
Status: => CONSTANT-MODIFICATION (compiler committee)
CONTAGION-ON-NUMERICAL-COMPARISONS
Version 1, 14-Sep-88, Released 6 Oct 88
Vote: 1n2y3n4y5y6y7y8y9y10y11y12y12y13y14y TRANSITIVE
Comments: "not worth implementation effort"
Status: block vote
DECLARATION-SCOPE
Version 4, 15-Nov-88, Released 9-Dec-88
Vote: 1n2n3n4y5n6y7i8y9n10y11y12y13y14y NO-HOISTING
Vote: 1y2n3y4n5y6i7y8i9y10n11n12n13n14y LIMITED-HOISTING
Comments: NO-HOISTING too incompatible LIMITED-HOISTING ok, but
unconvinced of need. All examples easily solved by changing
some variable names.
6,8: 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
12: LOCALLY can always be used to hoist a declaration around an
initial value form
13: NO brings LET closer to application of LAMBDA-expressions.
The "en passant" capture in LIMITED is a bit too strange.
Status: vote on LIMITED first, NO second (if LIMITED fails)
DECLARE-FUNCTION-AMBIGUITY
Version 4, 5-Dec-88, Released 5-Dec-88
Vote: 1n3y4y5y6y7y8y9y10y11y12a13a14y DELETE-FTYPE-ABBREVIATION
Comments:
5: Moon mildly opposed; gratuitously incompatible. Pitman favors
benefit of making regular outweighs costs
Status: separate vote
DECLARE-TYPE-FREE
Version 8, 7-Dec-88, Released 9-Dec-88
Vote: 1a3y4y5n6n7y8y9y10n11y13n14n ALLOW
Version 9, 2-Jan-89, Released 6-Jan-89
Vote: 5y6n10y13y14y LEXICAL
Vote: 5n6y10n13n14n ALLOW
Comments: 12: Want more discussion of merits of ALLOW vs LEXICAL
LEXICAL is consistent with SYMBOL-MACROLET-DECLARE:ALLOW
Version 10, 12-Jan-89
Status: separate voting on Version 10
---
DECLARE-TYPE-USER-DEFINED
Synopsis: allow (declare ((signed-byte 8) x y z)) for all type specifiers?
Status: Not submitted
DECODE-UNIVERSAL-TIME-DAYLIGHT
Version 2, 30-Sep-88, Released 6 Oct 88
Vote: 1y3y4a5y6y7y8i9y10a11y12y13a14y LIKE-ENCODE
Status: block vote
DEFINITION-DELETE
Synopsis: provide a way to get rid of structures, etc.
Status: not submitted
DEFMACRO-BODY-LEXICAL-ENVIRONMENT
Synopsis: Allow DEFMACRO at non-top-level to capture environment.
Status: not submitted to cleanup; in compiler committee
DEFPACKAGE
Version 7, 2-Nov-88, Released 5 Dec 88
Vote: 1y3y4y5y6y7i8y9y10y11y12y13y14y ADDITION
Comments: Spell out "at variance"; define semantics in terms of existing
package functions. Mail 6-Jan-89
7: If we allow time for more experimental usage of this before adopting it
8: believe that "should signal an error" should be "will signal an error"
Status: separate vote
DEFSTRUCT-ACCESS-FUNCTIONS-INLINE
Synopsis: defstruct accessors are proclaimed inline
Version 2, 7-Jan-89, released 10-Jan-89
Status: New/vote?
DEFSTRUCT-CONSTRUCTOR-KEY-MIXTURE
Version 2, 21-Sep-88, Released 6 Oct 88
Vote: 1y2i3y4y5y6y7i8y9y10y11y12y13i14y ALLOW-KEY
Comments: 7, 13: If the proposal is fixed as suggested by Kim Barrett
Version 3, 8-Jan-88, Released 11-Jan-89
Status: new/vote on 2 vs 3?
DEFSTRUCT-PRINT-FUNCTION-INHERITANCE
Version 3, 7 Dec 88, Released 12-Dec-88
Vote: 1y2y3y4y5y6y7y8y9y10y11n12y13y14y YES
Status: block vote?
DEFSTRUCT-REDEFINITION
Synopsis: what happens if you redefine a DEFSTRUCT?
Version 2, 7-Jan-89
Status: ready for release??
DEFSTRUCT-SLOTS-CONSTRAINTS-NAME
Version 4, 31-Oct-88, Released 12-Dec-88
Vote: 1y2y3y4y5y6y7y8c9y10i12y13y14y DUPLICATES-ERROR
Version 5, 12-Jan-89
Status: vote separate
DELETE-FILE-NONEXISTENT
Version 1, 5-Oct-88
Comments: should just signal different errors?
Status: awaiting new version
DESCRIBE-INTERACTIVE
Version 4, 15-Nov-88, Released 7-Dec-88
Vote: 1n2a3n4n5y6n7n8a9y10a11y12a13a14n EXPLICITLY-VAGUE
Vote: 1y2y3y4y5i6y7y8y9n10a11n12a13a14n NO
Comments: 5: "Yes" for the NO option iff EXPLICITLY-VAGUE fails.
Status: separate vote
DOTTED-MACRO-FORMS
Vote: 1y2y3y4y5y6y7y8y9y10n11y12y13y14y ALLOW
Version 3, 15-Nov-88, Released 7-Dec-88
Status: block vote
DYNAMIC-EXTENT
Version 3, 11-Jan-89
Status: DRAFT, ready for release?
ELIMINATE-FORCED-CONSING
Synopsis: Add :RECYCLE or :MODIFY keyword arguments to sequence,
list & string functions where such arguments are useful.
Version 3, 31-Aug-88
Status: Need volunteer to pursue
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."
Status: need volunteer to submit
EQUAL-STRUCTURE
Version 5, 1-Oct-88, Released 8 Oct 88
Vote: 1y2i3y4a5i6y7y8y9y10a11y12y14n STATUS-QUO
Version 6, 11-Jan-89, Released 12-Jan-89
Comments: needs amendments
Status: vote separate
ERROR-NOT-HANDLED
Version 1, 25-Sep-88, Released 6-Oct-88
Status: separate vote
EXIT-EXTENT
Summary: What happens with non-local exits out of UNWIND-PROTECT cleanup
clauses?
Version 5, 12-Dec-88, Released 12-Dec-88
Vote: 1a2n3a4n5n6c7n8n9n10n11n12n13n14n MINIMAL
Vote: 1a2i3y4y5n6c7y8y9n10y11y12y13y14n MEDIUM
Comments: MEDIUM more useful in one important case
Current vague state better than muddled attempt to fix it.
Version 6, 8-Jan-89
Status: ready for release?
EXPT-RATIO
Version 3, 31-Oct-88, Released 7 Dec 88
Vote: 1y2y4y5y6y7y8y9y10y11a12y13y14y P.211
Status: block vote
FILE-LENGTH-PATHNAME
Comments: Some people didn't seem to think
this was appropriate. No one seemed very interested in writing it up.
Status: not submitted
FILE-WRITE-DATE-IF-NOT-EXISTS
Synopsis: What does FILE-WRITE-DATE do if no such file?
Version: no proposal
Status: => non-existant "error signalling" committee
FIXNUM-NON-PORTABLE
Version 4, 7-Dec-88, Released 12-Dec-88
Vote: 1n2n3n4i5y6y7n8n9y10i11n12y13y14n TIGHTEN-DEFINITION
Vote: 1y2n3y4y5n6a7n8n9n10y11y12n13n14n TIGHTEN-FIXNUM-TOSS-BIGNUM
Comments: TOSS-FIXNUM-TOSS-BIGNUM
4, 10: TIGHTEN-DEFINITION if TIGHTEN-FIXNUM-TOSS-BIGNUM is voted down
I don't think either proposal really addresses the problem adequately
doesn't do much for anyone & will break some implementations.
8: BIGNUM not useful, but there are other non useful aspects; changing
requires better justification.
12: Tossing BIGNUM is a gratuitous incompatibility
13: frequently fixnum is bigger than address/can index or count.
more portable than explicit subrange
14: We feel that fixnums could be made portably useful only if they were
required to be large enough to cover both array indices and object
counts; neither proposal is strong enough about these points
Status: separate vote
FOLLOW-SYNONYM-STREAM
Status: Not Submitted; lost in STREAM-ACCESS
FORMAT-E-EXPONENT-SIGN
Vote: 1y2y3y4a5y6y7y9y10a11a12y13y14y FORCE-SIGN
Version 2, 2 Oct 88, Released 6 Oct 88
Status: block vote
FORMAT-NEGATIVE-PARAMETERS
Synopsis: What does FORMAT do when it gets negative numbers for count?
Version: No proposal
Comment: KMP will incorporate in the list-of-signals part of the signal
proposal
Status: need volunteer
FORMAT-PRETTY-PRINT
Version 7, 15 Dec 88, Released 7 Dec 88
Vote: 1y2y3y4y5y6y7y9y10y11y12y13y14y YES
Comments: remaining questions:
- 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 Yes and Yes, 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.
Status: separate vote (amend to No and No?)
FORMAT-ROUNDING
Synopsis: specify that ~F rounds up
Version 1, 5-Oct-88
Comments: we don't like the proposal
recommend #+IEEE-FLOATING-POINT => round-to-nearest?
Status: withdrawn?
FUNCTION-ARGUMENT-LIST
Synopsis: want way to get argument list
Status: not submitted
FUNCTION-COERCE-TIME
Synopsis: When does SYMBOL-FUNCTION happen in MAPCAR?
Version 2, 16-sep-88
Status: need new version
FUNCTION-COMPOSITION
Synopsis: Add new functions for composing function values
Version 4, 12 Dec 88, Released 12 Dec 88
Vote: 1n2n3n4n5y6a7n8n9n10a11n12i13y14n NEW-FUNCTIONS
Vote: 1n2y3n4y5i6y7i8n9n10i11n12i13i14n COMPLEMENT-AND-ALWAYS
Comments: fix Barry Margolin's complaint about the degenerate case of
COMPOSE
6, 13: COMPLEMENT-AND-ALWAYS if NEW-FUNCTIONS fails
7,10: If a name better than "ALWAYS" can be found,
or if only COMPLEMENT were in the proposal
Amend ALWAYS => CONSTANTLY?
8: error in the proposal, the example for find-if specifies AND and
DISJOIN to be equivalent
12: if one of TEST-NOT-IF-NOT passes
Status: separate vote (w/amendment(s))
FUNCTION-DEFINITION
Version 2, 09-Dec-88, Released 9 Dec 88
Vote: 1y3y4y5y6y7y8a9y10a11n12y13y14n FUNCTION-SOURCE
Comments: The name FUNCTION-SOURCE sounds too much like a source-file
facility
[Lucid has such a thing]. We might accept the proposal if the name
were SOURCE-CODE; unfortunately, though this is in Lucid's documentation,
we are not really happy with that name either.
Status: vote separate
FUNCTION-TYPE-ARGUMENT-TYPE-SEMANTICS
Synopsis: Change semantics of argument types in function declarations
Version 3, 7-Dec-88, Released 12-Dec-88
Vote: 1y2y3y4y5y6y7y8y9y10y11y12y13y14y RESTRICTIVE
Comments: "explanation of exactly what changes could be clearer,
and I am not completely sure I understand it"
Status: block vote
FUNCTION-TYPE-REST-LIST-ELEMENT
Version 5, 14-Nov-88, Released 8-Dec-88
Vote: 1y2n3y4a5y6y7y8na9n10n11n12y13y14y USE-ACTUAL-ARGUMENT-TYPE
Status: separate vote
GC-MESSAGES
Synopsis: What about unsolicited GC messages?
Version 2, 14-Nov-88
Status: editorial UNSOLICITED-MESSAGES:NOT-TO-SYSTEM-USER-STREAMS?
GET-MACRO-CHARACTER-DISPATCHING
Synopsis: What does GET-MACRO-CHARACTER return for dispatching macros?
Status: not submitted
GET-MACRO-CHARACTER-READTABLE
Vote: 1y3y4y5y6y7y8y9y10y11y12y12y13y13y14y NIL-STANDARD
Version 2, 8 Dec 88, Released 8 Dec 88
Comments: test case says GET-DISPATCH-MACRO-CHARACTER returns EQ
functions; not required. Fix test case.
Status: separate vote (with amendment)
HASH-TABLE-ACCESS
Synopsis: Add new accessors for hash-table properties
Version 1, 13-Sep-88 released 8-Oct-88
Version 2, 13 Oct 88
status: awaiting new version
HASH-TABLE-GC
Synopsis: allow hash tables with GCable keys
Status: no proposal
HASH-TABLE-PACKAGE-GENERATORS
Version 7, 8-Dec-88, Released 9-Dec-88
Vote: 1a3a4n5y6y7y8a9n10n11y12y13n14y ADD-WITH-WRAPPER
Comments: The test-package-iterator example has the values
from the generator in the wrong order.
10: should be functions
13: proposal premature. Wait until need more firm
Bothered by use of macrolet; why not INLINE function?
Status: separate vote (with amendment)
HASH-TABLE-PRINTED-REPRESENTATION
Version 2, 8-Jun-88
Comments: Use #S(ARRAY ...), #S(HASH-TABLE...), #S(PATHNAME...)?
Status: need new proposal
HASH-TABLE-STABILITY
Vote: 1a2y3y4c5n6a7n8c9?10c11y12y13y14y KEY-TRANSFORM-RESTRICTIONS
Version 1, 11-Nov-88, Released 12 Dec 88
Comments: Is this necessary? No time to understand.
8: Is SXHASH supposed to work accross different invocations? proposal
implies
implies otherwise?
10: Would support a simpler proposal that it is an error to
destructively modify elements of equal hash tables but ok to do so for eq
hash tables.
13: important clarification even though it may
not lead to extensive changes in practice; disagree with the
suggestions that it be shortened
Status: separate vote?
HASH-TABLE-TESTS
Version 2, 8-Dec-88, Released 8 Dec 8 8
Vote: 1y3y4n5y6y7y8y9y10y11y12y13y14y ADD-EQUALP
Comments: "We would really like to see = hash tables, too."
SXHASH is not quite suitable for use with
EQUALP, and so I would like the key transformation function that
is used with EQUALP to made available to the user.
Status: vote separate? Requires EQUALP clarification to work.
IEEE-ATAN-BRANCH-CUT
Version 2, 11-Jan-89, Released 11-Jan-89
Status: new/vote?
IN-PACKAGE-FUNCTIONALITY
Version 4, 12-Dec-88, Released 12-Dec-88
Vote: 1y2y3y4n5y6y7i8i9y10y11y12y13y14y SELECT-ONLY
Comments: 7, 8: "Yes" if DEFPACKAGE
?: If we allow time for more experimental use of DEFPACKAGE before
adopting this.
Status: block vote
IN-SYNTAX
Synopsis: like IN-PACKAGE but for readtables
Version 1, 21-Oct-88
Comments: too narrowly focused?
Status: needs new version
INPUT-STREAM-P-CLOSED
Synopsis: What do INPUT-STREAM-P and OUTPUT-STREAM-P do on closed streams?
Status: not submitted
INPUT-STREAM-P-EXAMPLE
Synopsis: (input-stream-p (make-broadcast-stream)) is NIL
Version 1, 26-Oct-88
Status: bug report, needs no clarification?
LAMBDA-FORM
Vote: 1y3y4n5y6a7n8a9y10y11n12y13y14n NEW-MACRO
Version 4, 22-Nov-88, Released 8-Dec-88
Comments: 10 New special form would be even better.
Status: separate vote
LAMBDA-LIST-DUPLICATES
Status: withdrawn
LCM-NO-ARGUMENTS
Vote: 1y3y4y5y6y7y8y9y10y11y12y13y14y [Returns] 1
Version 1, 17 Oct 88, Released 8 Dec 88
Status: block vote
LEAST-POSITIVE-SINGLE-FLOAT-NORMALIZATION
Synopsis: should LEAST-POSITIVE- and MOST-POSITIVE-XXX-FLOAT
numbers include denormalized ones in those implementations
that admit them?
Status: Not yet submitted
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, Released 11-Jan-89
Status: New/vote?
LISP-SYMBOL-REDEFINITION
Version 5, 22-Nov-88, Released 8 Dec 88
Vote: 1y3y4y5i6y7n8y9y10y11y12y13y14n DISALLOW
Comments: Don't like (DEFVAR CAR ...) example
14: Like simpler "Redefining any documented
definition on a symbol in the LISP package -- such as variables,
functions, constants, properties and property-lists, etc -- is
undefined, except for the explicitly allowed cases (e.g. dynamic
binding of variables)."
Status: separate vote (with amendment?)
LIST-TYPE-SPECIFIER
Synopsis: add a type specifier (LIST NUMBER)
Version 1, 28 Jun 88
Status: withdrawn
LOAD-OBJECTS
Synopsis: Provide a way to allow defstruct/defclass objects in compiled
files
Version 1, 2-Jan-89
Status: need new version?
LOAD-TIME-EVAL
Synopsis: #, semantics not in read macro
Status: => clcompiler
LOAD-TRUENAME
Synopsis: Make default pathname for LOAD inside LOAD same?
Comments: same arguments as REQUIRE-PATHNAME-DEFAULTS?
Status: not submitted
MAKE-CONCATENATED-STREAM-EXAMPLE
Synopsis: (read (make-concatenated-stream (make-string-input-stream "1")
(make-string-input-stream "2"))) => 12?
Version 1, 26-Oct-88
Status: withdrawn, no issue (bug report to one implementation)
MAKE-PACKAGE-USE-DEFAULT
Version 2, 8 Oct 88, Released 12-Dec-88
Vote: 1y2n3y4n5n6y7n8y9y10n11n12n13n14y IMPLEMENTATION-DEPENDENT
Comments: Decreases portability, incompatible, special-case, has other ways
rationale incorrect, current practice incorrect
8: People writing portable code have more subtle problems to worry
about than the default :USE list anyhow
12: When using the implementation's extensions, it is better to make
this obvious by having to specify the implementation-dependent
package
Status: separate vote
MAKE-STRING-FILL-POINTER
Synopsis: extend MAKE-STRING to take a fill-pointer?
Version 1, 20-Oct-88
Comments: extend to take other keywords? MAKE-STRING should return
simple string always? Interaction with character proposal
Status: awaiting new version
MAPPING-DESTRUCTIVE-INTERACTION
Version 2, 09-Jun-88, Released 8 Oct 88
Synopsis: [don't] define interaction of DELETE on MAPCAR'd list.
Vote: 1y2y3y4y5y6y7y8y9y10y11y12y14y EXPLICITLY-VAGUE
Status: block vote
NTH-VALUE
Version 4, 8-Dec-88, Released 8 Dec 88
Vote: 1a3n4n5y6y7y8an9n10y11y12n13n14n ADD
Comments: 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.
12: Naming values using a numeric index is like using arrays
instead of DEFSTRUCT. If there were a way to specify a
value by a symbolic name I'd go for that
13: does not complete the set of operations=>not needed for completeness
Status: separate vote
OUTPUT-STREAM-P-EXAMPLE
Synopsis: Clarify (output-stream-p (make-concatenated-stream)) is NIL?
Version 1, 26-Oct-88
Status: already clear; just bug report for one implementation
PACKAGE-CLUTTER
Vote: 1y2y3y4i5y6y7y8y9y10y11y12y13y14y REDUCE
Version 6, 12-Dec-88, Released 12-Dec-88
Comments: stronger on properties; "implimentation"
Symbols that are special forms can have macros, be FBOUNDP
I don't see any need to restrict the use of internal symbols in
the CL package as property indicators
Stronger: implementation will not use any property names
which are on user-created packages (except by inheritance.)
Allow SETF of GET, GETF, and SYMBOL-PLIST?
Other properties also should be spelled out, as per Moon.
Status: separate vote with amendments?
PACKAGE-DELETION
Version 5, 21 nov 88, Released 8 Dec 88
Vote: 1y3y4a5y6y7a8y9n10i11y12y13a14y NEW-FUNCTION
Comments: Minor glitches
10: Remove the description of "correctable" error to be signalled and
handled.
This sort of detailed error protocol is not specified for any other
function
and is not appropriate here
Status: separate vote with amendment
PACKAGE-FUNCTION-CONSISTENCY
Synopsis: allow strings for package arg everywhere uniformly
Version 2, 12-Jan-89, Released 12-Jan-89
Comment: extend package accessors PACKAGE-NAME etc. to take strings too.
Status: need new version
PATHNAME-CANONICAL-TYPE
Synopsis: allow canonical :SOURCE-LISP to MAKE-PATHNAME;
require PATHNAME-TYPE to return same?
Version 1, 07-Jul-88
Comments: only add the :TYPE :SOURCE-LISP, not PATHNAME-CANONICAL-TYPE?
Status: => "pathname" committee?
PATHNAME-COMPONENT-CASE
Synopsis: allow ALL UPPER CASE to mean "use the 'right' case
Comments: lots of heat?
Status: => "pathname" committee
PATHNAME-EXTENSIONS
Synopsis: allow a way of telling whether a pathname is a pattern, a "funny"
file
Comments: necessary in standard?
Status: => "pathname" committee
PATHNAME-LOGICAL
Synopsis: add logical pathnames (pathnames for an imaginary portable
file system, which get translated by site-dependent translations into
physical pathnames on an actual file system)
Status: no proposal yet
PATHNAME-PRINT-READ
Synopsis: Print pathnames like #P"asdf"?
Version 1, 21-Oct-88
Comments: Numerous, pro, con. Print like #S(pathname ...)?
Status: need new version
PATHNAME-SUBDIRECTORY-LIST
Synopsis: How to deal with subdirectory structures in pathname functions
Version 3, 29-Dec-88
Comments: typos and proposed simplifications
Status: need new version
PATHNAME-SYNTAX-ERROR-TIME
Synopsis: when are errors in pathnames detected?
Version 1, 7-Jul-88
Comments: various
Status: need new version
PATHNAME-TYPE-UNSPECIFIC
Vote: 1y3y4i5y6y7n9y10y11y12y13y14y NEW-TOKEN
Version 1 27-Jun-88, Released 7 Oct 88
Comments: may be subsumed
Status: block vote
PATHNAME-UNSPECIFIC-COMPONENT
Version 1, 29-Dec-88, Released 12-Jan-89
Synopsis: More extensions to :UNSPECIFIC
Status: new/vote?
PATHNAME-WILD
Version 2, 6-Oct-88
Synopsis: Portable way to ask about "wildcard" pathnames?
Comments: consistent with PATHNAME-COMPONENT-CASE?
Status: => "pathname" committee
PEEK-CHAR-READ-CHAR-ECHO
Version 3, 8-Oct-88, Released 8 Oct 88
Synopsis: PEEK-CHAR, READ-CHAR on streams made by MAKE-ECHO-STREAM
Vote: 1y2y3y4n5y6y7y8y9y10y11y12y13y14y FIRST-READ-CHAR
Comments: "All metastreams must now support PEEK-CHAR directly..."
conflict with the rationale for issue UNREAD-CHAR-AFTER-PEEK-CHAR,
which is to legitimize implementing PEEK-CHAR as READ-CHAR/UNREAD-CHAR?
14: "proposal could be reduced from three pages to three sentences"
Status: separate vote
PRINT-CIRCLE-SHARED
Synopsis: does *PRINT-CIRCLE* cause shared structure to print with #=?
Status: Not submitted
PRINT-CIRCLE-STRUCTURE
Version 3, 20 Sep 88, Released 8 Oct 88
Vote: 1y3y4i5y6y7y8y9y10y11y12y13y14y USER-FUNCTIONS-WORK
Comments: 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: one way to handle circular printing is
to traverse the structure to detect circularities before
printing anything.
Status: separate vote, with amendment?
PROCLAIM-LEXICAL
Version 9, 8-Dec-88, Released 12-Dec-88
Synopsis: add LEXICAL proclaimation
Vote: 1n3c4n5y6y7n8i9y10n11y12y13y14i LG
Comments: change "Clarify" => "Define"
- Good idea, but insufficient experience implementing&using.
- OK in principle; want discussion to ensure talking about same thing.
- No fundamental complaint, but more experience needed before standard.
- Define the status of unproclaimed free variables.
Presumably, they are an error; compilers should issue a warning.
- I don't believe in 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.
- 8: If it can be implemented easily then I'm for it.
- 14: If it is clearly spelled out that it is
an error to make a dynamic binding of a proclaimed lexical variable;
we could not find such a statement in the proposal.
Status: vote separate, amendment
PROCLAIM-SCOPE
Synopsis: PROCLAIM's scope can end at "file" boundaries?
Status: => clcompiler
PROMPT-FOR
Synopsis: Add function to ask user for a value
Status: awaiting resubmission
RANGE-OF-COUNT-KEYWORD
Version 3, 9-Oct-88, Released 14-Oct-88
Vote: 1y3y4y5y6y7y9y10y11y12y13y14y NIL-OR-INTEGER
Status: block vote
RANGE-OF-START-AND-END-PARAMETERS
Version 1, 14-Sep-88, Released 7 Oct 88
Vote: 1y2y3y4y5y6y7y8y9y10y11y12y13y14y INTEGER-AND-INTEGER-NIL
Status: block vote
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
Status: awaiting submission
REAL-NUMBER-TYPE
Synopsis: add REAL = (OR RATIONAL FLOAT) & range
Version 2, 08-Jan-89
Comment: lengthy dissent; discussion? coercion for comparitor?
Status: need new version
REMF-DESTRUCTION-UNSPECIFIED
Synopsis: Specification of side-effect behavior in CL
Version 2, 29-Oct-87, Released 8-Oct-88
Version 4, 29-Nov-88, Released 12-Jan-89
Status: Poll? Vote?
REMF-MULTIPLE
Synopsis: What does REMF do if it sees more than one INDICATOR?
Version 2, 12-Jan-89, Released 12-Jan-89
Status: newly released
REQUIRE-PATHNAME-DEFAULTS
Version 6, 9 Dec 88, Released 09 Dec 88
Vote: 1y2y3y4y5y6y7n8y9n10y11n12y13a14i ELIMINATE
Comments: Deprecate instead. Do not remove from the Lisp package.
14: Not "don't care", unable to decide what to do.
Status: separate vote
REST-LIST-ALLOCATION
Version 3, 12-Dec-88, Released 12-Dec-88
Vote: 1n2n3n4n5n6n7n8a9n10y11n12n13n14y NEWLY-ALLOCATED
Vote: 1y2y3y4y5y6y7y8a9n10n11y12y13y14n MAY-SHARE
Vote: 1n2n3n4n5n6n7n8a9n10n11n12n13n14n MUST-SHARE
Comments: Add a new kind of declaration?
8: All three stink. No idea what to do.
14: We "buy" Will Clinger's argument about the semantics of APPLY.
Status: separate vote
REST-LIST-EXTENT
Synopsis: allow way to declare dynamic extent &REST
Status: incorporated in issue DYNAMIC-EXTENT
RETURN-VALUES-UNSPECIFIED
Version 6, 9 Dec 88, Released 9-Dec-88
Vote: 1y3y4y5y6y7y8y9y10y11y12y13y14y SPECIFY
Status: block vote
ROOM-DEFAULT-ARGUMENT
Version 1, 12-Sep-88, Released 8 Oct 88
Vote: 1y2y3y4a5y6y8a9y10n11y12y13y14n NEW-VALUE
Comments: "I liked KMP's suggestion of defining additional synonyms"
I suppose we might, instead, allow anything other than T or NIL.
That has a bit of a ternary feel to it.
14: ROOM not different than other fns with optional. Want
more "general" proposal.
Status: vote separate
SEQUENCE-FUNCTIONS-EXCLUDE-ARRAYS
Version 6, 06-Oct-88, Released 11-Jan-89
Comments: New version scales down rejected version
Status: new/vote?
SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO, SETF-PLACES
SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO Version 3, 4-Nov-87, Released Nov 87
Vote: 1y3y4n5n6y7i8i9y10n11y12y13n14i SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO:SETF-FUNCTIONS
SETF-PLACES Version 1, 11-Nov-88, Released 9-Dec-88
Vote: 1n3n4i5n6i7y8n9n10n11n12n13n14y SETF-PLACES:ADD-SETF-FUNCTIONS
Comments: premature to vote on this issue
want unified issue
7: If SETF-PLACES:ADD-SETF-FUNCTIONS fails.
other options?
8: SFVM:SF much better than before. What about
(defmacro (setf name) ?) Yes if nothing better comes along.
SP:ASF would require code to have ugly #.
12: I don't think it's possible to define a version UNDERLYING-NAME
that returns a symbol and meets all the requirements
13: Not happy with either. First seems nicer but complicates
semantics. second looks like desperate attempt to avoid first.
14: could live with either, SFVM:SF fails to address necessary
issues of cleanup for CLOS document
Status: vote separate?
SETF-MULTIPLE-STORE-VARIABLES
Synopsis: Allow multiple "places" in SETF stores
Version 1, 5-Dec-88
Status: awaiting new version
SETF-SUB-METHODS
Version 5, 12-Feb-88, Released 8 Oct 88
Synopsis: careful definition of order inside (SETF (GETF ...) ...)
Vote: 1a2y4y5y6y7n8y9y10y11y12y14y DELAYED-ACCESS-STORES
7: not "right" semantics? presentation needs work even if right.
Status: separate vote?
SINGLE-FLOAT-NON-PORTABLE
Synopsis: remove SINGLE-FLOAT, DOUBLE-FLOAT a la FIXNUM?
Status: Not submitted
SPECIAL-TYPE-SHADOWING
Synopsis: intersection of types when proclaimed special has local type
declaration
Version 1, 4-Nov-88, released 11-Jan-89
Status: new/vote?
SPECIAL-VARIABLE-TEST
Synopsis: Add SPECIAL-VARIABLE-P?
Version 2, 31-May-88
Status: "On hold pending SYNTACTIC-ENVIRONMENT-ACCESS"
STANDARD-INPUT-INITIAL-BINDING
Version 8, 8 Jul 88, Released 7 Oct 88
Vote: 2y3y4y5y6y7y8y9y10y11y12y13y14y DEFINED-CONTRACTS
Status: block vote
STANDARD-VALUE
Synopsis: user can say binding is "temporary"
Version 1, 21-Oct-88
Comments: not worth trying to standardize now?
Status: ready for release?
STEP-ENVIRONMENT
Vote: 1y2c3y4y5i6y7y8y9?10y11y12y14y CURRENT
Version 3, 20-Jun-88, Released 7 Oct 88
Comments: need clarification: compiled STEP only interprets
what would have already been interpreted if STEP wasn't there.
Status: separate vote with amendment
STREAM-ACCESS
Version 2, 30-Nov-88, Released 9 Dec 88
Vote: 1n3n4i5n6y7y8i9y10i11n12y14y ADD-TYPES-PREDICATES-ACCESSORS
Vote: 1n3n4?5y6n7y8y10n11y12?14i ADD-TYPES-ACCESSORS
Vote: 1y3y4?5n6n7y8a10n11n12?14i ADD-PREDICATES-ACCESSORS
Comments: 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.
8: TYPES-ACCESSORS, then TYPES-PREDICATES-ACCESSORS, then abstain
9: two changes to proposal
13: How many type names do not have corresponding predicates?
14: Prefer TPA, Yes if fails.
Status: separate vote with amendment(s)
STREAM-CAPABILITIES
Version 1, 7/5/88
Synopsis: SAME-SOURCE-P, SAME-DESTINATION-P, etc
Status: awaiting new version, from "pathname/file" committee?
STREAM-DEFINITION-BY-USER
Synopsis: Want user-definable stream types.
Status: not submitted
STREAM-ELEMENT-TYPE-EXAMPLES
Version 1, 26-Oct-88
Synopsis: clarify STREAM-ELEMENT-TYPE may return different values?
Status: editorial? Need new proposal?
STREAM-INFO
Version 6, 30-Nov-88, Released 9 dec 88
Vote: 1y3y4y5i*6y7y8y9?10n11y12y14y ONE-DIMENSIONAL-FUNCTIONS
Comments: 5: "Yes" only if the name-changing amendment passes
writeup incorrectly states that Newline is not a standard character;
Perhaps someone has confused "standard" with "graphic".
Change: LINE-WIDTH ==> STREAM-LINE-WIDTH
LINE-POSITION ==> STREAM-LINE-POSITION
PRINTED-WIDTH ==> STREAM-STRING-WIDTH
8: prefer amendment. Can NIL be returned?
7: complex proposal; maybe changes in detail after experience?
10: inappropriate (examples in mail)
14: buy GZ's arguments about false illusion of portability
Status: separate vote
SUBTYPEP-TOO-VAGUE
Version 4, 7-Oct-88, Released 7 Oct 88
Vote: 1y2y3y5y6y7y10y11y12y14y CLARIFY
Comments: complicated; not sure
If MEMBER, AND, OR, and NOT can be handled, I'd be happier if they
were handled. This proposal is nonetheless better than the status quo.
Status: block vote
SYMBOL-MACROFLET
Version 1, 30 Sep 88
Synopsis: Add SYMBOL-MACROFLET gives lexical function expansion
Status: need new version
SYMBOL-MACROLET-DECLARE
Version 2, 9-Dec-88, Released 9 Dec 88
Vote: 1y3y4i5y6y7y8y9y10y11y12y13y14y ALLOW
Comments: 4: Only if SYMBOL-MACROLET-SEMANTICS passes
13: note DECLARE-TYPE-FREE:LEXICAL correlation
Status: block vote
SYMBOL-MACROLET-SEMANTICS
Vote: 1y2y3y4a5y6y7y8y9y10y11a12y13y14y SPECIAL-FORM
Version 5, 30-Nov-88, Released 9 Dec 88
Comments: 9: need more clarification
Status: block vote
SYNTACTIC-ENVIRONMENT-ACCESS (Version 1)
=> clcompiler
TAGBODY-CONTENTS
Version 5, 9-Dec-88, Released 9 Dec 88
Vote: 1y3y4y5i6y7y8y9y10i12y13i14y FORBID-EXTENSION
Comments: "The term "data element" is too vague in paragraph 2 of the
proposal.
Our "Yes" vote is contingent on correcting this.
lmm changed mind.
10: We support forbidding extensions, but oppose allowing duplicate and
unreachable tags. Instead we would prefer clarifying that () is a form
and not a valid tag.
13: Contents should be valid forms (including self-evaluating) or valid
tags. Duplicate tags should be an error (as in the proposal).
Status: separate vote (with amendment?)
TAIL-RECURSION-OPTIMIZATION
Version 2
Status: => cl-compiler?
TAILP-NIL
Version 5, 9-Dec-88, Released 12-Dec-88
Synopsis: Operation of TAILP given NIL
Vote: 1y2y3y4y5y6y7a8y9y10y11a12y14n T
Comments: 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.
14: not worth bothering about
Status: separate vote
TEST-NOT-IF-NOT
Version 3, 1 Dec 88, Released 9 dec
Vote: 1n3n4y5y6a7n8na9n10y11n12n13y14n FLUSH-ALL
Vote: 1n3n4i5y6a7y8na9n10y11y12n13y14n FLUSH-TEST-NOT
Comments: Unnecessary incompatible change
4: Flushing some is better than not flushing all
5: mostly happy with either,slight preference to FLUSH-ALL.
"Yes" 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.
9: deprecate
12: Gratuitous incompatibility
13: don't oppose "depreciation" instead of deletion.
The functionality of REMOVE-IF-NOT should be preserved under
another name. Perhaps DELETE-IF-NOT too
Status: separate vote
THE-AMBIGUITY
Version 2, 11-Jan-89, Released 11-Jan-89
Comments: typo, sense wrong
Status: new, no vote?
TRACE-ERROR
Synopsis: TRACE should signal errors if it doesn't understand
Version 1, 20-Jun-88
Comments: is this a cleanup?
Status: withdrawn?
TRACE-FUNCTION-ONLY
Synopsis: extend TRACE to handle other specs
Comment: we don't like it
Status: withdrawn
TRUENAME-SYNTAX-ONLY
Version 1, 12-Sep-88
Synopsis: when does TRUENAME perform checking?
Comments: other options? leave more vague? Other questions?
Status: need new version => "pathname" committee
TYPE-OF-UNDERCONSTRAINED
Vote: 1y2c3y4y5i6y7i8y9n10y11y12y13y14y ADD-CONSTRAINTS
Version 3, 12-Dec-88, Released 12 Dec 88
Comments: 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 fix scope of quantifiers in (a)
Amend: for all x, for all bt
(when (built-in-type-p bt)
(when (typep x bt) (assert (subtypep (type-of x) bt)))).
Status: separate vote with amendment
TYPE-SPECIFIER-PREDICATE
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."
Comments: considerable discussion on common lisp mailing list.
Status: Not yet submitted
UNDEFINED-VARIABLES-AND-FUNCTIONS
Synopsis: What happens on an undefined function call, unbound variable ref?
Version 1, 29-Nov-88, Released 11-Jan-89
Status: new/don't vote?
UNREAD-CHAR-AFTER-PEEK-CHAR
Version 2, 2-Dec-88, Released 12-Dec-88
Vote: 1y2y3y4y5y6y7y8y9y10y11y12y13y14y DONT-ALLOW
Status: block vote
UNWIND-PROTECT-NON-LOCAL-EXIT
Status: renamed to EXIT-EXTENT
VARIABLE-LIST-ASYMMETRY
Version 3, 08-Oct-88, Released 9 Dec 88
Vote: 1y3y4y5y6y7y8n9y10y11y13y14y SYMMETRIZE
Comments: Error checking gained by disallowing (var) more important than
symmetry.
If anything (var) should be disallowed in all forms.
Status: sepaarate vote
WRITE-NEWLINE
Synopsis: Add a :NEWLINE keyword to WRITE
Version 1, 20-Oct-80
Comments: we don't like it
Status: withdrawn?