[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: DISASSEMBLE-SIDE-EFFECT (version 1)
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Issue: DISASSEMBLE-SIDE-EFFECT (version 1)
- From: Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 8 Dec 87 15:22 PST
- In-reply-to: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>'s message of Tue, 8 Dec 87 12:36 EST
I think we should take a step back and ask what the place of DISASSEMBLE, ED,
TRACE, BREAK, DRIBBLE, INSPECT etc.. should be in the ANSI standard. These are
things for which constructing a denotational semantics is not feasible, cann't
be easily tested with a validation suites, etc.
I think a more global change of status for these is called for; I'd propose that
the ANSI Standard should say something like:
"The following are suggested features for a ANSI Common Lisp programming
environment. Conforming implementations are required to document what, if
anything, these functions do, in detail. However, no portable ANSI Common Lisp
program can rely on the behavior of these functions, because the behavior is
specifically not specified in the standard."
Once we move away from conformance and standard into recommendation, we might
actually be more able to make better progress recommending, for example, that
systems call their GC function (GC) and their exit function (EXIT) etc.