[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
issue LOAD-TIME-EVAL, version 11
- To: Aaron Larson <alarson@src.honeywell.com>
- Subject: issue LOAD-TIME-EVAL, version 11
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 15:46 EST
- Cc: cl-compiler@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: <8903200418.AA21128@pavo.src.honeywell.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 89 22:18:17 CST
From: alarson@src.honeywell.com (Aaron Larson)
I find myself strongly opposed to **3.
Read Sandra's answer first.
The problem is that the **2 proposal is not well specified and thus
cannot be implemented, or will require the implementor to make arbitrary
decisions that will probably come out different ways for different
implementations.
Thus I think it's incumbent on anyone who opposes **3 to propose an
alternative, and I think just going back to **2 is not a viable
alternative.