[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue SUBTYPEP-TOO-VAGUE
- To: "Kim A. Barrett" <IIM@ECLA.USC.EDU>
- Subject: Re: Issue SUBTYPEP-TOO-VAGUE
- From: David N Gray <Gray@DSG.csc.ti.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 89 18:24:00 CST
- Cc: cl-cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: Msg of Fri 10 Mar 89 14:42:41-PST from Kim A. Barrett <IIM@ECLA.USC.EDU>
- Sender: GRAY@Kelvin.csc.ti.com
> Date: Fri 10 Mar 89 14:42:41-PST
> From: Kim A. Barrett <IIM@ECLA.USC.EDU>
> Subject: Issue SUBTYPEP-TOO-VAGUE
> The proposal SUBTYPEP-TOO-VAGUE:CLARIFY, passed at the Hawaii meeting, says
> "SUBTYPEP should signal an error when handed (for either argument) a type
> specifier that involves VALUES or the list form of the FUNCTION type."
> This prevents a compiler from using such type declarations to do type checking
> and such on functional arguments.
I don't see any problem here. My compiler has a type testing function
that handles VALUES types itself and converts (FUNCTION ...) to just
FUNCTION before calling SUBTYPEP, so it isn't prevented from doing
anything that it wants to.
If if you want these cases to be permitted, then you will need to define
what they mean.