[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: LIST-TYPE-SPECIFIER (Version 1)
- To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: Re: Issue: LIST-TYPE-SPECIFIER (Version 1)
- From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 7 Oct 88 16:28 PDT
- Cc: Beckerle@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU, Masinter.PA@Xerox.COM, eb@Lucid.COM, CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>'s message of Thu, 6 Oct 88 03:16 EDT
I don't this can be released with such divergent views on what it does.
It would help to talk about the generic capabilities of the type specifiers
independently of their names. I'm not sure that either of the kinds of type
specifiers people want to add make sense, whether you have to have a new
kind of CONS cell or whether it really talks about the old kind.
For discussion on Monday.