[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Who says, "gratuitous"?
- To: RWK at MIT-MC
- Subject: Who says, "gratuitous"?
- From: Jon L White <JONL at MIT-MC>
- Date: Sat, 1 Aug 81 19:05:00 GMT
- Cc: GJC at MIT-MC, CWH at MIT-MC, GSB at MIT-MC, ALAN at MIT-MC, KMP at MIT-MC, BUG-LISP at MIT-MC, MACSYMA-I at MIT-MC
- Original-date: 1 August 1981 15:05-EDT
Date: Monday, 27 July 1981, 10:13-EDT
From: Robert W. Kerns <RWK at MIT-MC>
Subject: Penultimate pain-in-the-ass
To: JONL at MIT-MC
Why do you feel this irresistable compulsion to make gratuitous changes?
Please restore the SELECTQ to use GJC's winning version.
LSB's SELECTQ is much more a winner. Just because GJC's version is more
limited is no reason for you, too, to try your hand at insults.
The LSB version, (the one in UMLMAC) is extensible, with current setting
to limit datatype, just as the LISPM does. Contrary to what was alleged
earlier, there never has been any "incompatibility" with the LISPM, but
merely the potential extension. You see, there are many of us who don't
simply take the LISPM-implementation of SELECT/SELECTQ as the forever-fixed
definition; it should be extended to work for other data types.
By the bye, GSB was actively hacking the SELECTQ macro of LSB,
and it has none of the faults or inefficiencies that GJC alleges.
He merely looked at the results of an intermediate version, and
I didn't bother reading his flame due to its obvious profanity.