[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: FUNCTION-COERCE-TIME (Version 2)
- To: Jon L White <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com (Sandra J Loosemore)
- Subject: Re: Issue: FUNCTION-COERCE-TIME (Version 2)
- From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 7 Nov 88 15:07 PST
- Cc: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: Jon L White <firstname.lastname@example.org>'s message of Fri, 21 Oct 88 20:16:26 PDT
- In-reply-to: email@example.com (Sandra J Loosemore)'s message of Thu, 13 Oct 88 14:59:41 MDT
JonL: Kent still has the hope that he'll be able to reverse the decision in
FUNCTION-TYPE and let lambda lists be standardly coerced to functions by
default. Rather than tie up this proposal with that issue, he resorted to
terminology that would otherwise unnecessarily link the two issues.
I think it is a good idea to make sure the two issues aren't linked. Maybe
all we need to do is to explain in the discussion section the reason why it
was written in this way.
Sandra: Can you explain the reasons why you like "ambitious"? I can't think
of any good reasons for making it the standard; it doesn't improve the
potential performance of applications and it does interfere with the
flexibility of the language; delayed "binding" is a feature we should be
cautious about removing from Lisp. Similarly, there doesn't seem to be any
good reason for leaving it explicitly vague, does there? Could you explain?