[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: PRINT-PRETTY-HOOK (version 1)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Issue: PRINT-PRETTY-HOOK (version 1)
- From: Scott.Fahlman@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 88 11:10:52 EDT
- In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 22 Sep 88 10:42:09 -0400. <8809221442.AA13567@mist.UUCP>
1 CLOS may not be a required part of Common Lisp, therefore portable code
may not be able to assume it.
Do others share this view? My understanding of recent decisions was that
CLOS was going to be in the standard with the same status as CONS and EVAL
-- required of any system that wants to call itself a legal Common Lisp.
I guess there's still some question about the meta-object stuff, but can't
we assume the rest?