[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
issue DYNAMIC-EXTENT-FUNCTION, version 2
- To: sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu
- Subject: issue DYNAMIC-EXTENT-FUNCTION, version 2
- From: Jon L White <jonl@lucid.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jun 89 11:30:28 PDT
- Cc: cl-cleanup@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: Sandra J Loosemore's message of Sun, 11 Jun 89 13:26:24 MDT <8906111926.AA20929@defun.utah.edu>
re: . . . Except for the interpretation of <name> as the
name of a function instead of the name of a variable, such a declaration
otherwise has semantics that are identical to those already described
in proposal DYNAMIC-EXTENT:NEW-DECLARATION.
I like this. It really says what I think is preferable -- that the
declaration DYNAMIC-EXTENT applies to name-bindings, whether "value"
or "functional". Had we had a bit more foresight, this might have
gotten into the original proposal, but it's no big deal to have two
proposals.
-- JonL --