[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: FUNCTION-COMPOSITION (Version 2)
- To: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: Issue: FUNCTION-COMPOSITION (Version 2)
- From: Jon L White <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Oct 88 20:30:15 PDT
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: Kent M Pitman's message of Thu, 13 Oct 88 17:08 EDT <881013170837.6.KMP@BOBOLINK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
re: My notes from Fairfax meeting...
. . .
Also, no existing implementations have this.
[He didn't seem willing to count the T language. -kmp]
[I don't remember saying this, but if I did, it certainly would be
defensible on the grounds that we are standardizing Common Lisp, not T].
As I've outlined earlier, this is the sort of gratuitious addition to the
language that ought to be tested first -- tested by it's utililty to some
vendor/implementor who feels it's worth the risk to add something like it
to his product. I deplore the tendency to think that vendors shouldn't make
an offering unless it is "sanctioned" by the X3J13 committee.
I say "gratuitious" because
(1) no vendor/implementor supplies them now; thus it is not "existing
practice" that needs to be standardized;
(2) no fundamental problem has been exposed because of its lack; no
implementational headaches would be resolved, and few (if any) pleas
from the user community would be addressed;
(3) no confusions exists among our community as to what these functionals
(or similar such features) mean; hence no need to clarify.
-- JonL --