[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: FUNCTION-NAME (Version 1)
- To: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: Re: Issue: FUNCTION-NAME (Version 1)
- From: sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu (Sandra J Loosemore)
- Date: Sun, 29 Jan 89 14:22:45 MST
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, Common-Lisp-Object-System@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>, Fri, 27 Jan 89 22:48 EST
On the whole, I like this presentation much better than either of the
other two writeups that were circulated previously. I suspect that it
might be necessary to vote on each of the items in the LARGE proposal
individually, though. I think I would support items 1, 2, and 11, and
don't have any particular objections to 3, 5, and 6. For item 4, if
consistency with GENERIC-FLET and GENERIC-LABELS is an object, another
alternative is to change those two special forms to be like ordinary
FLET and LABELS, instead of vice versa.
-Sandra
-------