[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: REQUIRE-PATHNAME-DEFAULTS (Version 3)
- To: David N Gray <Gray%DSG.csc.ti.com@multimax>
- Subject: Re: Issue: REQUIRE-PATHNAME-DEFAULTS (Version 3)
- From: Dan L. Pierson <pierson%mist@multimax.ARPA>
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 88 16:44:18 EDT
- Cc: CL-Cleanup%SAIL.Stanford.edu@multimax
- In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 28 Oct 88 10:53:24 -0500.
It seems to me that several implementors have serious problems with
the proposed restriction that gives REQUIRE a portable meaning. I put
the restriction in there because without it I feel that REQUIRE
contributes much more to non-portability than portability.
Given these objections I now think that the best (least bad?) option
is to admit that PROVIDE and REQUIRE supply only trivial portable
functionality and remove them from the language. This will require no
implementations to change but will clearly indicate to users that
these constructs are not useful in portable code.
Can we decide to do this now and move on to more important topics?