[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: COERCE (Version 1) vs COERCE-FROM-TYPE
- To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: Issue: COERCE (Version 1) vs COERCE-FROM-TYPE
- From: Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 4 Sep 88 16:05 PDT
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>'s message of Mon, 20 Jun 88 12:19 EDT
Kent: I think that the issues COERCE-FROM-TYPE and COERCE-INCOMPLETE are the
same issue, with two separate proposals. I'd like to merge the discussion of
them, since I favor the combination of the two proposals better than either one
alone, that is, add the TYPE argument, use the class precedence list to define
the priority when there is an ambiguity of how to view the type.
M.Ida brought up a good point in his message of 18 Jul 88; do we need a cleanup
to redefine TYPE-OF to be the same as (CLASS-NAME (CLASS-OF x)) ?