[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: TAGBODY-CONTENTS (Version 4)
- To: Masinter.PA@Xerox.COM
- Subject: Re: Issue: TAGBODY-CONTENTS (Version 4)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Wed, 5 Oct 88 23:48 EDT
- Cc: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: <881005-204319-2154@Xerox>
Date: 5 Oct 88 20:43 PDT
It would be just as easy to say that if duplicate tags are present, the
first one takes precedent.
Indeed, it would be easy to say. It would be harder to feel really
comfortable that that was what the user intended and that you didn't
just have a syntax error. Just as reasonable would be to take the tag
that was visually closest, assuming the user couldn't get the whole
function on the screen to see the conflict. I'd just as soon not make
an arbitrary decision since I don't think anyone's pushing for it.
The proposal on the table is conservative on this point, which is why
I like it.
I'd say that along the lines of performance, implementation cost,
readability that its a wash and that the aesthetics are slightly improved.
By your suggestion, mine, or both?