[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: DESTRUCTURING-BIND (Version 1)
- To: Jon L White <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Issue: DESTRUCTURING-BIND (Version 1)
- From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 25 Jan 89 10:50 PST
- Cc: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: Jon L White <email@example.com>'s message of Wed, 25 Jan 89 02:47:30 PST
It's not over until the committee sings, is it?
I don't think the rationale for *passing* this issue should be "consistency
with LOOP", but I do think that's the rationale for *bringing up* this
issue. The Rationale section should document the reasons why the changes
we are making are good changes. The reason this is a good change is that it
is not only useful, it is current practice in many implementations, and,
it is consistent with LOOP, in that order.
The reason for bringing it up now (which we might mention in the Discussion
section) is that LOOP reminded us of it, and the fact that LOOP can be used
for the same thing pushes things over the edge.
I don't think this is a big deal, but am a little sensitive that the
changes we make should be "right" judged independently of our schedule,
even though we stick to the schedule.