[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: 15 Feb 89 11:12 PST
- Cc: jeff%aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>'s message of Wed, 15 Feb 89 13:54 EST
- Line-fold: NO
> [CL-Cleanup removed to avoid repeating a debate that I'd thought was
> settled. Masinter retained just so he knows this exchange occurred.]
Those who send private mail have to take the risk of having to see their
I think that the only issue we really have the charter to attack is to
"fix" what we think was a mistake in the wording of the amendment that
was accepted at the last meeting.
I don't think we should revisit the issue itself. The intent at the X3J13
meeting was to endorse a proposal where ADJUST-ARRAY might in fact
work in some implementations on arrays that were made with :ADJUSTABLE
NIL as long as they were ADJUSTABLE-ARRAY-P. We think that the
amendment made to achieve that purpose also made some other programs
which we think are portable now invalid/non-conformal, and so lets fix that.
I see no reason to reconsider the entire issue.
The question remains: does Version 6 adequately fix the "mistake" made
in Version 5? Dussud and Moon think so.
Do KMP and RPG disagree? I'm unclear about whether the "Alternate presentation"
from RPG is meant as an improvement over Version 6.