Re: issue COMPILE-ENVIRONMENT-CONSISTENCY

[cperdue@Sun.COM (Cris Perdue)]

> "Crash and burn" does seem a bit excessive.  The problem is that the
> error terminology in CLtL is too vague.  We could borrow the conventions
> the CLOS folks came up with and say that the behavior is "unspecified"
> instead.
> 
> -Sandra
> -------

The CLOS "unspecified" behavior would be an acceptable specification.
All the same, where there is an obvious and small set of alternatives
(e.g. 2 possibilities), I'd personally rather see them specified as the
allowed possibilities.
				-Cris