[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: ADJUST-ARRAY-NOT-ADJUSTABLE (Version 8)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Issue: ADJUST-ARRAY-NOT-ADJUSTABLE (Version 8)
- From: Guy Steele <gls@Think.COM>
- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 16:20:53 EST
- Cc: email@example.com, X3J13@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: Jon L White's message of Wed, 15 Mar 89 23:32:47 PST <8903160732.AA11607@bhopal>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 89 23:32:47 PST
From: Jon L White <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Also, I note that all of the discussion on the Cl-cleanup list was by
persons other than the half-dozen or so maintainers of "stock hardware"
compilers. I personally spoke with three others (not including myself)
at Hawaii, and we all have identical requirements for the type SIMPLE-ARRAY,
and identical resolve that it must not be changed. Our compilers will
continue to offer this C-level optimization capability; the only
question is whether or not the CL1989 Standard will be cognizant of it.
I am very concerned about the stock hardware, but also very confused.
I understand that the stock-hardware implementors adamantly oppose
the proposed change, but I still have not seen a single convincing
example of why the proposed change would prevent them from accomplishing
the desired optimizations or why the proposed change would defeat
portability. I acknowledge that JonL has provided an example or two,
but I have not found them convincing. So either these examples are
wrong, or I am badly wedged; in either case I need further explanation.