[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: SETF-PLACES (version 1)
- To: Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: Issue: SETF-PLACES (version 1)
- From: Patrick Dussud <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 88 09:29:57 PST
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: David A. Moon's message of Tue, 22 Nov 88 19:49 EST <19881123004923.5.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 88 19:49 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
I am not happy with this proposal, because I think it is excessively
complicated. I still prefer the SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO proposal.
However, I would rather accept this kludge than not have CLOS at all, so
if X3J13 is adamantly against SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO I will accept this
I have the same feelings about it. Having my name associated with it does not
mean that I like it, only that I helped debug it, and that I am not ready to
remove SETF specs from CLOS.
I would prefer to see X3J13 allowed to vote on both proposals
as alternatives, since it's possible that when they see this one they
would prefer the one they rejected before.
I think we should do that.
Note: I am not complaining about the writeup of the proposal, which
is quite clear, but about the substance of the proposal. I believe
the distinction between "specs" and "underlying names" is confusing
and unnecessary. Evidently that is a minority position.
Given the amount of feedback, it is too early to tell if it is a minority