[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: issue DYNAMIC-EXTENT-FUNCTION, version 1
- To: Jon L White <jonl@lucid.com>
- Subject: Re: issue DYNAMIC-EXTENT-FUNCTION, version 1
- From: sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu (Sandra J Loosemore)
- Date: Wed, 5 Apr 89 08:21:39 MDT
- Cc: sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu, cl-cleanup@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: Jon L White <jonl@lucid.com>, Tue, 4 Apr 89 20:59:22 PDT
I don't want to downplay your concerns, but it ought to be pointed out
that all of the problems you mention also apply to the DYNAMIC-EXTENT
declaration proposal that we have already accepted. (The only
difference between the two is that DYNAMIC-EXTENT declarations apply
to variable bindings and DYNAMIC-EXTENT-FUNCTION declarations apply to
function bindings.) Maybe I'm extrapolating beyond what was actually
stated in issue DECLARATION-SCOPE, but there's no confusion in my mind
about the scope of these two particular declarations, or what it means
for them to appear "free".
-Sandra
-------