[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: TEST-NOT-IF-NOT (Version 2)
- To: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- Subject: Issue: TEST-NOT-IF-NOT (Version 2)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 88 19:34 EDT
My notes from Fairfax meeting...
Ready for vote (or straw vote).
Pierson says, contrary to what's in writeup, that he endorses it only
if it's deprecated (rather than removed).
Barmar: want ability to express a contingent vote on the letter
ballot. eg, "Yes, only if FUNCTION-COMPOSITION passes."
RWK: want ability to to vote contingent on deprecation/removal
JonL: visible change, low payback.
van Roggen: Something should definitely be done. eg, some implementations
might extend the "is an error" case of both :TEST and :TEST-NOT
to use AND or OR to resolve the ambiguity!