[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: LAMBDA-FORM (Version 1)
- To: vanroggen%aitg.decnet@Hudson.DEC.COM
- Subject: Issue: LAMBDA-FORM (Version 1)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 88 17:11 EDT
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: The message of 28 Jun 88 12:47 EDT from "AITG::VANROGGEN" <email@example.com>
Date: 28 Jun 88 12:47:00 EDT
From: "AITG::VANROGGEN" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Could you specify the "technicality" referred to in the CURRENT PRACTICE
section (or leave out the argument)?
CLtL specifies that "all" of the functions, macros, variables, etc. it
describes must be in the LISP package, but it doesn't say "all and
only". There's technically nothing keeping any implementation from
defining any of the variables as a function or macro, or any of the
functions as a variable. Indeed, it doesn't say that other things can't
occur in the package besides those things described.
On my list of things to submit is a cleanup item clarifying this point.
I'll expand it in the next draft if it seems possible to do so concisely,
or perhaps move the remark to the discussion.
I just wanted to indicate somewhere that implementations like Symbolics
Genera which offer a LAMBDA macro are technically in conformance with
CLtL. I could do that in the discussion section, for example.