[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


    Date: Thu, 13 Oct 88 14:13:43 MDT
    From: sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu (Sandra J Loosemore)

    I generally like this proposal because the wording it uses is much more
    understandable than the terminology in CLtL (which I have never succeeded
    in grokking fully).  I have two big problems with the current writeup:
    other hand, it has two big problems:

    (1) The treatment of TYPE declarations contradicts proposal
    DECLARE-TYPE-FREE.  I don't think I could vote for either proposal
    without some better indication of how they are supposed to work

    (2) Since issue FLET-DECLARATIONS was passed at the March meeting, the
    writeup needs to be changed to reflect that and give TYPE and FTYPE
    declarations the same treatment (either both "bound" or both "free").

Mumble.  Both of these problems were corrected in version 3 of the
proposal, which I sent to JonL on September 18.  Can it be that no
one but JonL and me ever saw that version?  I may have screwed up.