[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Issue: TAILP-NIL (Version 2)
- To: KMP@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com
- Subject: RE: Issue: TAILP-NIL (Version 2)
- From: vanroggen%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
- Date: Wed, 14 Sep 88 06:49:27 PDT
Well, that's a surprise. I thought I had spotted a simple, non-controversial
item from Guy's list, which really needed to be done due to the inconsistency
I must admit that I hadn't tried TAILP on a Symbolics machine. I had just
read the description of TAILP in an older manual, which gave the possible
implementation I originally included (definition "A"). I guess I was guilty
of propagating false concepts.
Frankly, I don't really care which way we choose. If several other would
prefer TAILP-NIL:T, then let's delete the TAILP-NIL:NIL proposal. But
let's not spend a lot of time on it.