[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: CLOS-CONDITIONS (Version 3)
- To: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: Re: Issue: CLOS-CONDITIONS (Version 3)
- From: Dan L. Pierson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 09 Mar 89 14:19:28 EST
- Cc: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 09 Mar 89 14:06:00 -0500. <19890309190624.4.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
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.
Even though I personally prefer the aesthetics of YES-OPTION-A, JonL
and Gregor have made a very strong case for YES-OPTION-B so I now
support it instead.
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?
The comments I got from non-cleanup members at Kuaui were that cleanup
should be making more decisions and giving more guidance. Some even
went to far as to say we had done a poor job because we didn't have an
explicit recomendation from cleanup attached to every issue.
Let's just present YES-OPTION-B and concentrate on dealing with more
difficult objections such as Thom Linden's (the policy of
CLOSification must be decided in general before voting in any piece of