ISSUE: VARIABLE-LIST-ASYMMETRY

• 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 <skona%csilvax@hub.ucsb.edu>

```    Date: Mon, 1 Aug 88 20:15:41 PDT
From: Skona Brittain <skona%csilvax@hub.ucsb.edu>

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.
eg,
``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.

```