[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: CL-CLEANUP@Sail.stanford.edu
- Subject: Issue: TRACE-FUNCTION-ONLY
- From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 23 May 88 13:43 PDT
- Cc: Kempf@sun.com
My notes from our subcommittee meeting was that we wanted to handle this issue
as a "make it undefined". However, in re-reading CLtL, I find that the language
there is perfectly adequate for handling the situation ("trace and untrace may
also accept additional implementation-dependent argument formats. The format of
the trace output is implementation-dependent.")
I no longer have any enthusiasm for pushing on this issue.
If anyone wants to pursue the issue in its current form, I would like to see a
discussion section saying that I think it is unnecessary.