[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: TAGBODY-CONTENTS (Version 5)
- To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: Re: Issue: TAGBODY-CONTENTS (Version 5)
- From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 9 Jan 89 19:40 PST
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>'s message of Tue, 3 Jan 89 00:25 EST
I wrote up this proposal in the current form, but I've had some second
thoughts as I'm trying to deal the ballot comments.
I've forgotten the reasons for allowing other types of objects in TAGBODY
bodies. I still like the part about duplicate elements was the part about
duplication, viz: duplicates are OK if there's no GO.
Walter's objections were not included in the proposal writeup, I've
"I strongly disagree with the version 4 change to allow duplicate
tags as long as there is no GO to them. If one really wants to be
able to use NIL as a statement because of the way many people write
macros, then let's change the proposal to treat NIL as a statement,
and not as a tag. And the rationale about using symbols as dividers
in code sounds pretty weak to me--that what comments are for.
I never saw version 3 of the proposal, but it sounds more like what
I'd find reasonable, judging by the change history.
I guess we can talk about this next week. I'm just saying I've probably
changed my mind -- not that this is an important issue.