[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: DECLARE-TYPE-FREE (Version 9)
- To: Gray@DSG.csc.ti.com
- Subject: Issue: DECLARE-TYPE-FREE (Version 9)
- From: Jon L White <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 89 03:07:24 PST
- Cc: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM, CL-Cleanup@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: David N Gray's message of Wed, 11 Jan 89 10:10:01 CST <2809527001-3602765@Kelvin>
re: [JonL] I would go for a version that treated an inner declaration
as if it were the intersection of the outter one. How about you?
[Gray] Agreed. That's what version 6 of DECLARE-TYPE-FREE said:
Clarify that if nested type declarations refer to the same variable,
then the value of the variable must be a member of the intersection of
the declared types.
Version 2 (but not Version 1) also had that phraseology in it. Looks
like that paragraph fell into "Masinter's Hole" (that's the hole that
Larry said he hoped he wouldn't dig himself into when he began tinkering
with it late at night, just before Releasing it to X3J13). Probably Moon
lost track of it when he added the LEXICAL proposal (i.e., trying to fill
in the "Hole").
We definitely need that phrase.
-- JonL --