[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: EQUAL-STRUCTURE (Version 5)
- To: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- Subject: Issue: EQUAL-STRUCTURE (Version 5)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 88 16:42 EDT
My notes from Fairfax meeting...
Sandra: Why not "fix" EQUALP?
KMP: It's not fixable. Very brief discussion in writeup of why we
didn't go with the other options might be appropriate to head
off more questions like this at vote time.
Masinter: Just to see how arbitrary the choice of equality operators
is, note that there is no overlap between any of the Interlisp
equality operators and the Common Lisp ones!
Beckerle: There would be an extremely high cost to making any change
to EQUALP. There would be lots of "sleeping" errors, for
which no error could be signalled -- programs would just
behave incorrectly in subtle ways.
Someone (Slater?) asked why not add keyword arguments?
KMP: Among other things, this would mean that EQUALP couldn't be
a hash table predicate.