[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: EQUAL-STRUCTURE (Version 4)
- To: jeff%aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK
- Subject: Re: Issue: EQUAL-STRUCTURE (Version 4)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Sun, 2 Oct 88 16:05 EDT
- Cc: Masinter.PA@Xerox.COM, CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
If someone introduces an incompatible feature under the same name as an
existing feature (such as your example of instances implemented as
closures), the burden should be on them to document their way out of the
hole they have dug.
If someone introduces a compatible feature (such as Flavors support
that does not interfere with CLOS support), the documentation burden
should be only to document the extension -- not to calm their users
about imagined problems brought on by gratuitously specific wording in
Terms like "CLOS instances" suggest the possibility of another kind.
If we want to suggest another kind, we'll do so.
If it's any help, terms like "character string", "atomic symbol", and so
on bother me just as much...