[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Cleanup Issue Status
- To: Dan L. Pierson <email@example.com>, Guy Steele <gls@Think.COM>, firstname.lastname@example.org, chapman%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
- Subject: Re: Cleanup Issue Status
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 89 12:18 EST
- Cc: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <8903151640.AA05621@mist.>
- Line-fold: No
My notes agree with Dan and Guy. It's complicated because the
COMPLEMENT portion of FUNCTION-COMPOSITION was moved into
TEST-NOT-IF-NOT by an amendment, which was where it was
actually passed. Back in FUNCTION-COMPOSITION, NEW-FUNCTIONS
was voted down unanimously and later COMPLEMENT-AND-CONSTANTLY
was voted down by something to something.
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 89 11:40:28 EST
From: Dan L. Pierson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 89 11:06:53 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@Think.COM>
> >+ FUNCTION-COMPOSITION
> >Synopsis: Add new functions
> >Version 5, 10-Feb-89
> >Status: Passed (as amended) Jan 89 X3J13
> I know this is picky, but I thought it was decided to fail this one
> completely and amend TEST-NOT-IF-NOT (I believe that was the related
-- you may be right. I wish we had minutes. I guess I'll stick by my
summary unless I hear otherwise.
My notes show that the COMPLEMENT function was accepted and
all other parts of the proposal failed.
My memory agrees with Guy's notes. We did spend several sessions on
this one and the waters got rather muddy at times.