[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: "cl-cleanup" <email@example.com>
- Subject: CL-Cleanup-mailer
- From: "AITG::VANROGGEN" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: 29 Jun 88 13:04:00 EDT
- Reply-to: "AITG::VANROGGEN" <email@example.com>
What's the name of this issue? STANDARD-OUTPUT-xxx or STANDARD-INPUT-xxx?
The problem description and proposal sound pretty good, except that I
don't understand the reason for the restriction that the predefined
streams other than *TERMINAL-IO* can't be synonym streams for each other.
Is it really necessary to disallow some implementation initially binding
*ERROR-OUTPUT* to a synonym stream for *DEBUG-IO*, for example?
I don't see the need for adding three more predicates. Where is the
justification? Most of the other sections of the proposal adequately
justify the need for loosening the initial binding requirements for
predefined streams, but not for the additional predicates.
Furthermore the descriptions of those predicates seem controversial.
What is STREAM-INTERACTIVE-P really trying to establish? It seems
unlikely that output to a stream satisfying the predicate will really
change the following input--there aren't any such streams in Common
Lisp now, are there? Or is it really trying to ask if there's someone
out there (human or not) that will provide (synchronously?) some input
after there's been some output? Or is something like TWO-WAY-STREAM-P
sufficient? Does this imply *TERMINAL-IO* must be a TWO-WAY-STREAM?
Or is it just asking if it's bidirectional?
I assume the use of *STANDARD-ERROR* is a typo in the Test Case.