[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
** BALLOT ** BALLOT ** BALLOT ** BALLOT **
- To: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Subject: ** BALLOT ** BALLOT ** BALLOT ** BALLOT **
- From: Jon L White <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 89 05:18:18 PST
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM's message of 12 Dec 88 18:16 PST <881212-181649-5908@Xerox>
This ballot represents the consensus of senior "wizards" at Lucid; we
hope the information helps in deciding what issues to "bundle" together.
We recognize this ballot as a "straw poll" rather than an official X3
ballot; our official votes will be given in the ususal channels (e.g.,
by Dick or myself at the X3J13 meeting), most likely along the lines
-- JonL --
Version 4, 21-Sep-88, Mailed 4 Dec 88
Version 9, 31-Oct-88, Mailed 5 Dec 88
Version 5, 5-Dec-88, Mailed 5 Dec 88
Version 1, 14-Sep-88, Mailed 6 Oct 88
Version 4, 15-Nov-88, Mailed 9-Dec-88
Version 4, 5-Dec-88, Mailed 5-Dec-88
Version 8, 7-Dec-88, Mailed 9-Dec-88
We wish to vote yes on a corrected, extended version of "LEXICAL"
Version 2, 30-Sep-88, Mailed 6 Oct 88
Version 7, 2-Nov-88, Mailed 5 Dec 88
Version 2, 21-Sep-88, Mailed 6 Oct 88
Version 3, 7 Dec 88, Mailed 12-Dec-88
Version 4, 31-Oct-88, Mailed 12-Dec-88
And we think there should be a more detailed explanation of
why the current state has a problem.
Version 4, 15-Nov-88 , Mailed 7-Dec-88
Version 3, 15-Nov-88, Mailed 7-Dec-88
Version 5, 1-Oct-88, Mailed 8 Oct 88
Version 5, 12-Dec-88, Mailed 12-Dec-88
[I think we felt that the current vague state is better than
a muddled attempt to fix it; we are currently in the process of
doing extensive work on this question for QLISP -- JonL --]
Version 3, 31-Oct-88, Mailed 7 Dec 88
Version 4, 7-Dec-88, Mailed 12-Dec-88
We feel that fixnums could be made portably useful only if they were
required to be large enough to cover both array indices and object
counts; neither proposal is strong enough about these points.
Version 2, 2 Oct 88, Mailed 6 Oct 88
Version 7, 15 Dec 88, Mailed 7 Dec 88
Version 4, 12 Dec 88, Mailed 12 Dec 88
Version 2, 09-Dec-88 , Mailed 9 Dec 88
The name FUNCTION-SOURCE sounds too much like a source-file facility
[Lucid has such a thing]. We might accept the proposal if the name
were SOURCE-CODE; unfortunately, though this is in Lucid's documentation,
we are not really happy with that name either.
Version 3, 7-Dec-88, Mailed 12-Dec-88
Version 5, 14-Nov-88 , Mailed 8-Dec-88
Version 2, 8 Dec 88, Mailed 8 Dec 88
Version 7, 8-Dec-88, Mailed 9-Dec-88
And fix the typo in the example.
Version 1, 11-Nov-88 , Mailed 12 Dec 88
Version 2, 8-Dec-88, Mailed 8 Dec 88
Version 4, 12-Dec-88, Mailed 12-Dec-88
Version 4, 22-Nov-88, Mailed 8-Dec-88
Version 1, 17 Oct 88, Mailed 8 Dec 88
Version 5, 22-Nov-88, Mailed 8 Dec 88
We prefer a much simpler statement, such as "Redefining any documented
definition on a symbol in the LISP package -- such as variables,
functions, constants, properties and property-lists, etc -- is
undefined, except for the explicitly allowed cases (e.g. dynamic
binding of variables)."
Version 2, 8 Oct 88, Mailed 12-Dec-88
Version 2, 09-Jun-88, Mailed 8 Oct 88
Version 4, 8-Dec-88, Mailed 8 Dec 88
Version 6, 12-Dec-88, Mailed 12-Dec-881
Version 5, 21 nov 88, Mailed 8 Dec 88
Version 1 27-Jun-88, Mailed 7 Oct 88
But the Cost to Implementors is wrong -- it will cost us something.
Version 3, 8-Oct-88, Mailed 8 Oct 88
But we feel that the proposal could be reduced from three pages
to three sentences.
Version 3, 20 Sep 88, Mailed 8 Oct 88
Version 9, 8-Dec-88, Mailed 12-Dec-88
We could only accept this if it is clearly spelled out that it is
an error to make a dynamic binding of a proclaimed lexical variable;
we could not find such a statement in the proposal.
Version 3, 9-Oct-88, Mailed 14-Oct-88
Version 1, 14-Sep-88, Mailed 7 Oct 88
Version 6, 9 Dec 88, mailed 09 Dec 88
[This is not a "dont care"; we were unable to decide what to do. --JonL --]
Version 3, 12-Dec-88, mailed 12-Dec-88
We "buy" Will Clinger's argument about the semantics of APPLY.
Version 6, 9 Dec 88 mailed 9-Dec-88
Version 1 12-Sep-88 mailed 8 Oct 88
We do not feel that ROOM is so much different than any other function
which has optional arguments; perhaps a much more general proposal is
called for that would address the question of "explicitly" not supplying
optional and keyword arguments.
[The following are mutually exclusive]
Version 3, 4-Nov-87, mailed Nov 87
Version 1, 11-Nov-88, mailed 9-Dec-88
We could live with either proposal; however the earlier one fails to
address several necessary issues of cleanup for the CLOS document; it
would be acceptable to us if it simply incorporated the wording from
the later proposal.
Version 5, 12-Feb-88 mailed 8 Oct 88
Version 8, 8 Jul 88, Mailed 7 Oct 88
Version 3, 20-Jun-88, mailed 7 Oct 88
version 2, 30-Nov-88 mailed 9 Dec 88
(expect amendment T => "true")
We vote Yes for all three proposals on this issue, but really prefer
the first one, namely STREAM-ACCESS:ADD-TYPES-PREDICATES-ACCESSORS.
Version 6, 30-Nov-88, mailed 9 dec 88
LINE-WIDTH ==> STREAM-LINE-WIDTH
LINE-POSITION ==> STREAM-LINE-POSITION
PRINTED-WIDTH ==> STREAM-STRING-WIDTH
We "buy" Gail Zacharias' arguments about a false illusion of portability.
Version 4, 7-Oct-88, mailed 7 Oct 88
Version 2, 9-Dec-88, mailed 9 Dec 88
Version 5, 30-Nov-88, mailed 9 Dec 88
Version 5, 9-Dec-88 mailed 9 Dec 88
Version 5, 9-Dec-88, mailed 12-Dec-88
It's a waste of time to worry about TAILP; it's not worth bothering about.
Version 3, 1 Dec 88 mailed 9 dec
Version 3, 12-Dec-88, mailed 12 Dec 88
(some "bugs" in the proposal)
Version 2, 2-Dec-88, mailed 12-Dec-88
Version 3, 08-Oct-88, mailed 9 Dec 88