[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: SETF-SUB-METHODS (Version 5)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Issue: SETF-SUB-METHODS (Version 5)
- From: cperdue@Sun.COM (Cris Perdue)
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 89 13:17:20 PST
- Cc: email@example.com, masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
I have read Jeff Dalton's recent discussion as well as JonL's
email, and it is quite possible that I will change my
view as to what the semantics should be stated to be.
I'm not going to vote now for this proposal as it stands --
will think about it harder after X3J13.