[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: ADJUST-ARRAY-NOT-ADJUSTABLE (Version 6)
- To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: Re: Issue: ADJUST-ARRAY-NOT-ADJUSTABLE (Version 6)
- From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 30 Jan 89 14:47 PST
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, email@example.com, JonL@lucid.com, Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>'s message of Mon, 30 Jan 89 17:35 EST
I'd just as soon that technical discussions about cleanup proposals happen
on the cl-cleanup distribution list.
As long as we're quibbling about wording, we might as well get wording that
we like. If we're not already quibbling about wording, then we can put it
off for cl-editorial to do.
I'd rather proposals be explicit about the cases and cut things down later.
We do best if we describe the input/output behavior of functions with a
case analysis, where it is clear that all of the cases are covered. In a
cleanup proposal, you can omit repeating CLtL by saying "as described in
CLtL", or, if necessary for clarity (e.g., when there is some evidence that
CLtL's reading has been misread or not read), to repeat CLtL or rephrase it
with a "Clarify".