[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: skona%csilvax@Hub.UCSB.EDU
- Subject: ISSUE: VARIABLE-LIST-ASYMMETRY
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 88 10:15 EDT
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: The message of 1 Aug 88 23:15 EDT from Skona Brittain <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 88 20:15:41 PDT
From: Skona Brittain <email@example.com>
I don't see any difference between my proposal and the
modification to it that you are recommending.
I'm not surprised. They're the same. :-}
Sorry. I guess I didn't read carefully enough.
But I'm pretty sure I knew what threw me off, and it might be worth
correcting the style. In the problem description, you enumerate the
cases without the use of [...]. Then later you introduce the brackets,
so I was looking for
var | (var) | (var val)
when you'd written
var | (var [val])
etc. You might want to consider one of the following syntactic tricks
to help keep others from falling into the same trap:
* Use notation such as the following in the problem description:
do & do*: (var [init [step]])
prog & prog*: var | (var [init])
let & let*: var | (var val)
so that it matches the proposal.
* Use notation such as the following in the proposal:
do & do*: var | (var) | (var init) | (var init step)
prog & prog*: var | (var) | (var init)
let & let*: var | (var) | (var init)
in the proposal so it matches the problem description.
* Say something in the running text of the proposal to make it clear
what's going on to people like me who don't read carefully enough.
``Extend the language to permit all of the following syntaxes:''
Also, the category for this change is wrong. It should be listed as an ADDITION,
not a CHANGE since it is not incompatible.
And while you're in there, I'd extend the rationale section to add the
comments I made in my last message. There are, after all, other ways you
could have gone with this proposal (such as the way I thought you were
proposing). When the rationale section can put concern about such
alternatives to rest, I think it should.
You can add my support of the proposal to the discussion section.