[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: STREAM-INFO (Version 4)
- To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: Re: Issue: STREAM-INFO (Version 4)
- From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 29 Jun 88 23:32:43 PDT
- Cc: Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM, CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, Dick@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU
- In-reply-to: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM's message of Mon, 27 Jun 88 10:48 EDT, <880627104822.3.KMP@RIO-DE-JANEIRO.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
How 'bout just making it explicit that this things are intentionally left
undefined, with some of the reasons you gave?
I'm a little leary of adding a function where the requirements on the output
values are not spelled out. Is the width of "froboznick" guaranteed to be the
sum of the widths of "frob" and "oznick"? Greater than the width of "frob"? Of
"foo"? What about kerning?
If we can't guarantee anything about these functions, can programmers really
write portable programs? Or would a hack with #+ and #- be more honest?