[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: CLOS-CONDITIONS (Version 3)
- To: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM, KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: Issue: CLOS-CONDITIONS (Version 3)
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 9 Mar 89 14:06 EST
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <890203-223055-2803@Xerox>
- Line-fold: No
I favor CLOS-CONDITIONS:YES-OPTION-B, even though it's more
verbose, because it makes for a more consistent language.
I don't think the compatibility issue is important since we're
only talking about being compatible with a prototype that some
people have used, not being compatible with a widely used
standard. Essentially, I agree with JonL's comment of 9 Feb.
Would it make sense to offer only YES-OPTION-B to the whole
X3J13 committee, in order to limit the length of the discussion?
Or is that excessively Fascist?