[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: FUNCTION-COMPOSITION (Version 2)
- To: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- Subject: Issue: FUNCTION-COMPOSITION (Version 2)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 88 17:08 EDT
My notes from Fairfax meeting...
RPG opposed the proposal. Pitman asked if he could say why in just
a couple of setences. RPG said "2 sentences? ok... I don't like it.
I really don't."
We decided to try to get a sense of X3J13 on this when it came up
at the meeting...
Greenblatt: If adopted, maybe use less "generic" names.
Also, no existing implementations have this.
[He didn't seem willing to count the T language. -kmp]
Haflich: This woudl encourage good optimizations.
Masinter: A no vote on this is not a vote against functional
KMP: That's nonsense. Of course it is. Passing this proposal would
encourage a particular style of programming, and failing to
pass it would (in the absence of other compensating proposals)