[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: COERCE-INCOMPLETE (Version 2)
- To: Masinter.PA@Xerox.COM
- Subject: Re: Issue: COERCE-INCOMPLETE (Version 2)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 89 10:35 EST
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: <890214-163601-10990@Xerox>
Date: 14 Feb 89 16:34 PST
The last mail on this topic was 30-Dec-88.
We can either release version 2 (of 21-Nov-88), someone can produce a
new version, or we can drop it.
I don't think it's our job to make the decision, only to make the
options clear. I think the real options are:
1. STATUS-QUO: Leave COERCE alone (modulo extensions per FUNCTION-TYPE).
2. EXTEND: Extend COERCE per version 2 (since it's already written up).
3. DEPRECATE: Deprecate COERCE.
I don't think we have the authority to simply pocket veto the issue,
especially given that the user community (in this case `Japan') has
indicated that this is important to them. It deserves to at least come
to a full vote in some form.
I'm inclined toward dropping the issue, even though some of the extensions
"would be nice". I think David's message of 30-Dec is in agreement.
I suggest we take version 2, add an option to deprecate and an option
for status quo, and then declare our work done on it and just leave it
up to the committee to resolve this by 3-way vote. I'm willing to do the
Yes, the FUNCTION-TYPE issue already extended COERCE to deal with