[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
DRAFT Issue: SYMBOL-MACROLET-DECLARE (version 1)
- To: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: DRAFT Issue: SYMBOL-MACROLET-DECLARE (version 1)
- From: Jon L White <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 88 14:09:05 PDT
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: Kent M Pitman's message of Thu, 20 Oct 88 16:16 EDT <881020161608.0.KMP@BOBOLINK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
re: From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: DRAFT Issue: SYMBOL-MACROLET-DECLARE (version 1)
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 88 15:40:02 PDT
From: Jon L White <email@example.com>
This issue should be folded into SYMBOL-MACROLET-SEMANTICS; it would be
hardly one line in the descripton of SYMBOL-MACROLET as a special form.
Since it looks like SYMBOL-MACROLET-SEMANTICS is not very controversial
anymore, I see no reason to support separate proposals.
If you support both proposals, I see no reason not to leave them separate
and just ask you to vote yes. . . .
Uh, the problem is that the SYMBOL-MACROLET-DECLARE issue is raised
primarily because a macro-definition for SYMBOL-MACROLET would leave
the issue of DECLARE open. But the special-form version of SYMBOL-MACROLET
really should address it [there already have been cleanup issues to address
the declaration matter for the special forms that logically should have them
but for which CLtL didn't say -- FLET, LABELS, etc].
These two issues can no longer really be separated; if no one bothers to add
the one-line sentence to SYMBOL-MACROLET-SEMANTICS that would fully subsume
SYMBOL-MACROLET-DECLARE, then at least these two ought to be paired together
in discussions and voting.
-- JonL --