[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

D'4 Example

To: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: D'4 Example
From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 88 16:59 EST
Cc: common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-reply-to: The message of 23 Mar 88 16:14 EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>

The text in question didn't say radical changes of class, it said
any change of class.

Maybe what this really shows is that no matter what you define to be
undefined, a sufficiently clever implementor can come up with a subset
of that that clearly should have been specified to be valid for extension
rather than forever undefined.  I suppose in a way you said the same
thing by defining the set D'4 as the negation of another set.  So what
does this mean?  I'm happy with your latest words for describing things
that are specified to be forever undefined, but I'm probably not happy
with some of the things that are specified that way.

Prev by Date: Error Terminology
Next by Date: D'4 Example
Previous by thread: D'4 Example
Next by thread: D'4 Example
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread