[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
FUNCTION-TYPE and Archives
- To: cl-cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: FUNCTION-TYPE and Archives
- Date: Wed 13 May 1987 10:14:00 UTC
First, the archives for CL-cleanup are in clclea.msg[com,lsp].
However, this archive was separated out from the main Common-Lisp
archive only recently.
Second, about the FUNCTION-TYPE proposal: I support it, but mildly.
I favor a much stronger change, and this proposal is just barely above
the level of acceptability to me.
`` I never realized that FUNCTIONP and (TYPEP x 'FUNCTION) were not
synonymous. Please cite a page reference that suggests they are allowed
to differ. I could not find a definition of the FUNCTION type specifier
when I looked just now.''
The suggestion is on the same pages that allows the following two to
(let ((x '(or to-be (not to-be))))
(assert `(is-a question ,x)))
``To be or not to be: That is the question.''
KMP's third sentence is the answer: FUNCTION is a type name symbol
that corresponds to no type, and therefore (typep x 'function) is
not defined. This is what this proposal attempts to remedy.
However, to be slightly more serious, I am disturbed to always read
that Common Lisp must do this, that, or the other thing because otherwise
the effort to keep Macsyma up to date will suffer, or that the reason that
some feature must continue to exist is because it is reflected in
Macsyma usage. I like Macsyma as well as the next guy, but not enough to
kill a language to keep its code legal.