[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
amendments to already passed issues
- To: Guy Steele <gls@Think.COM>
- Subject: amendments to already passed issues
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Sat, 11 Mar 89 17:50 EST
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <8903102322.AA20447@verdi.think.com>
We should be discussing this under separate headings for
each issue, but in the meantime I couldn't resist offering
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 89 18:22:09 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@Think.COM>
(1) SYMBOL-MACROLET-SEMANTICS did not address the question of how
symbol macros interact with *MACROEXPAND-HOOK*.
I agree with your proposal.
(2) SYMBOL-MACROLET-SEMANTICS should perhaps also specify that
PSETQ of a symbol-macro symbol behaves like PSETF.
Agreed. This is already implied by the way CLtL describes PSETQ, but
it's better to be explicit so the functionality is not accidentally lost
during editorial work to improve the wording ("x is just like y except"
is not such a great way to write a standard).
(3) The LOOP Facility has an inconsistency in its examples.
Under the description of WITH it shows the use of AND as
(LOOP WITH binding AND WITH binding AND WITH binding body)
but in the discussion of destructuring an example reads
(LOOP WITH binding AND binding AND binding body)
The formal syntax for WITH prescribes that the word WITH should
*not* be reiterated (but note that the specification of
FOR/AS prescribes that FOR or AS *should* be written again--
possibly mixing them?)
I propose that, for consistency with FOR/AS, the formal syntax
of WITH be changed to require the word WITH to be reiterated,
and that the examples be changed to match.
The word should not be reiterated in either case. I think this was
one of the many comments I offered on the LOOP proposal last year,
but apparently it did not sink in.
(4) SUBTYPEP-TOO-VAGUE lists three rules....
This is too complicated for me to offer a knee-jerk opinion.
(5) TYPE-OF-UNDERCONSTRAINED has SINGLE-FLOAT and DOUBLE-FLOAT in its
list, but not SHORT-FLOAT or LONG-FLOAT.
I propose to add SHORT-FLOAT, LONG-FLOAT, and RATIONAL to the list.
I strongly agree.
I'm glad -somebody- is double-checking already passed issues. Also I'm
glad that -you- are.