[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: issue COMPILE-ENVIRONMENT-CONSISTENCY
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: issue COMPILE-ENVIRONMENT-CONSISTENCY
- From: cperdue@Sun.COM (Cris Perdue)
- Date: Tue, 6 Sep 88 10:53:26 PDT
- Cc: email@example.com
> "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"
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