[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: JonL@LUCID.COM
- Subject: Issue EQUAL-STRUCTURE
- From: Kim A. Barrett <IIM%ECLA@ECLC.USC.EDU>
- Date: Tue 28 Feb 89 13:44:16-PST
- Cc: cl-cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, iim%ECLA@ECLC.USC.EDU
> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 89 01:46:12 PST
> From: Jon L White <email@example.com>
> Kim, don't you have something turned around here? Previous mail referred to
> CLtL p81 to show that defstruct instances should be descended componentwise
> by EQUALP. This is not a statement about classes in general -- just about
> structure-class, and its historic meaning under EQUALP. Thus the Hawaii
> amendment was an *incompatible* change (which has already raised some
> question in Lucid's customer land!). This incompatible change unfortunately
> does nothing at all towards supplying the "mechanisms" you call for, and in
> fact breaks some existing code (in a very inscrutable way).
I stand by what I said. I believe you yourself have taken a position on some
issues that the status quo is wrong and needs to be fixed.
> Given the failure to make EQUALP generic, wouldn't it be far better to leave
> it alone and not make backwards-incompatible changes which do no one any
See new Issue EQUALP-GENERIC, coming soon to a mailbox near you.