Re: Cleanup Issue Status

[David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>]

My notes agree with Dan and Guy.  It's complicated because the
COMPLEMENT portion of FUNCTION-COMPOSITION was moved into
TEST-NOT-IF-NOT by an amendment, which was where it was
actually passed.  Back in FUNCTION-COMPOSITION, NEW-FUNCTIONS
was voted down unanimously and later COMPLEMENT-AND-CONSTANTLY
was voted down by something to something.

    Date: Wed, 15 Mar 89 11:40:28 EST
    From: Dan L. Pierson <pierson@mist.encore.com>

	Date: Wed, 15 Mar 89 11:06:53 EST
	From: Guy Steele <gls@Think.COM>
    
	   > >+ FUNCTION-COMPOSITION
	   > >Synopsis: Add new functions
	   > >Version 5, 10-Feb-89 
	   > >Status: Passed (as amended) Jan 89 X3J13
	   > I know this is picky, but I thought it was decided to fail this one
	   > completely and amend TEST-NOT-IF-NOT (I believe that was the related
	   > issue).
    
	   -- you may be right. I wish we had minutes. I guess I'll stick by my
	   summary unless I hear otherwise.
    
	My notes show that the COMPLEMENT function was accepted and
	all other parts of the proposal failed.
	--Guy
    
    My memory agrees with Guy's notes.  We did spend several sessions on
    this one and the waters got rather muddy at times.