[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
New version of FUNCTION-TYPE-REST-LIST-ELEMENT proposal
- To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: New version of FUNCTION-TYPE-REST-LIST-ELEMENT proposal
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Mon, 8 Feb 88 12:00 EST
- Cc: email@example.com, cl-cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: <880207150705.1.KMP@RIO-DE-JANEIRO.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 88 15:07 EST
From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
My preference is for EXTEND-LIST-TYPE because....
Does this mean you have a solution in mind for the well-known problems
with the element-type argument to the ARRAY type specifier? If so, I'd
like to hear it. If not, I think you would be heading towards making the
LIST and SEQUENCE type specifiers either have the same problem or be
inconsistent with ARRAY.