[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU
- Subject: FUNCTION-TYPE
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Sun, 7 Jun 87 16:17 EDT
- Cc: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, CL-Cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: <FAHLMAN.12308664162.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
I do not believe that all that can be usefully said about FUNCTION-TYPE
has been said. For example, I would like to discuss further this issue
you raised of providing a function to get the original s-expression from
a coerced function (of clean-type FUNCTION). T has such a function.
Its mere presence doesn't make everything ok, but it might contribute
to some overall theory. Before making a proposal, I need to study the
consequences of having it a bit more -- and I have no time to do that
right in the next couple of weeks. The details of this issue could
affect my view on the proposal currently on the table.
For reasons such as this, I feel that it would be premature to bring
FUNCTION-TYPE to the table at this meeting. I'd rather see this brought
to X3J13 only when we were sure we had things carefully thought out, to
preclude wasting valuable time in in-person meetings due to inadequate
preparation. The fact that Steele (and you?) will not be at the Boston
meeting is another good reason to wait.
Let's just keep this one on hold for two more months. I don't see how
that much time can hurt a lot, and I do see how it can help. It's not
like we don't have enough else to keep us all busy in the interim.