[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: CLOS-CONDITIONS (Version 3)
- To: Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: Issue: CLOS-CONDITIONS (Version 3)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 9 Mar 89 18:24 EST
- Cc: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM, KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <19890309190624.4.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 89 14:06 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.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.
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?
If no one had been given the opportunity to present an alternative,
it would be too fascist, I think. However, people have had two meetings
worth of time to react and no one has championed the alternate proposal.
My feeling is that option B wins over option A because although it
is syntactically more cumbersome in a few cases, it does away with
the `symbolconcing' feature, which is a real conceptual nightmare,
and because it regularizes the set of rules that people have to learn.
I will flush option A in a proposal to be written tomorrow unless
someone advances cause not to.