[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
belated editorial comment
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: belated editorial comment
- From: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: Wed, 27 Apr 88 10:59 PDT
- Fcc: BD:>Gregor>mail>outgoing-mail-2.text.newest
- Included-msgs: <8804270356.AA03909@bhopal.lucid.com>, The message of 26 Apr 88 20:56 PDT from edsel!jonl@labrea.Stanford.EDU, The message of 26 Apr 88 20:56 PDT from Jon L White
- Line-fold: no
I believe that this one of jonl's belated messages should be dealt with
by putting a comment at the front of this section saying this is just a
summary of something the cleanup committee is already dealing with.
Either that or it should be removed entirely.
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 88 20:56 PDT
From: Jon L White <edsel!jonl@labrea.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: "Written Responses" to CLOS 88-002: SETF Functions
"Introduction to Setf Functions" Belongs in CLtL, not CLOS
The title of this response says it all. How many times have we heard CLOS
subcommittee members invoke a shield against criticism by saying "CLOS can't
hope to fix Common Lisp's problems.". But the Setf Functions section does
More to the point, there is no need, now, to have this in the CLOS spec,
since it has already been tentatively approved by the Cleanup committee.
At worst, the CLOS spec may want to contain this exposition as a kind of
extended footnote, so that newer readers not familiar with the other X3J13
work will know what is going on.
-- JonL --