[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- Subject: Issue: LISP-SYMBOL-REDEFINITION
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Tue, 4 Apr 89 14:58 EDT
- Cc: sandra%defun@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
I need some help here. My notes say:
GZ wanted an amendment to strike item 8 from this list.
Sandra had some concern about the penultimate paragraph where she wanted a
prohibition on the ability to trace local functions (in implementations that
permit that). Moon thinks the proposal was amended to explicitly allow
tracing of such local function bindings.
>> Sandra: Please resolve this!
We went round in circles about item 8. A straw poll to send this back for
more work failed 6-10, so we kept on.
A motion was made to terminate discussion. This passed by 2/3 vote.
Moon's notes say item 8 may need further refinement, as for instance by GLS's
amendment. The goal is to separate properties into the ones the user can
bash and the ones the user cannot bash. [Anyway, we should expect that item 8
may come up in some form at the next meeting.]
Ultimately, I have written in my notes that we voted on
``proposal replaced by RPG, item 8 struck, w/ Sandra's prohibition
to trace local functions''
and that it passed 14-3.
>> This might not be accurate depending on how the discrepancy above is resolved.