[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: DECLARE-TYPE-FREE (Version 9)
- To: Masinter.PA@Xerox.COM
- Subject: Re: Issue: DECLARE-TYPE-FREE (Version 9)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jan 89 15:24 EST
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: <890103-113603-1600@Xerox>
Date: 3 Jan 89 11:35 PST
Well, I think it is enforcable, if you have specialized storage.
Can you give me a concrete example? I'm basically saying that since it's you
that wants to introduce a restriction, the burden of proof is on you to show
a single example where the restriction buys you somthing. If you think it
does buy you something, I'm not calling you a liar -- I'm just saying I'm not
able to see the example you're hinting at.
So far, the only concrete example we have is one which has a perfectly
legitimate interpretation or an "is an error" interpretation. You're saying
you want to opt for the "is an error" interpretation, but you're not saying
what I buy for giving up the flexibility.
As soon as we start talking about concrete examples, I think we'll be making