[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
issue DYNAMIC-EXTENT-FUNCTION, version 1
- To: Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: issue DYNAMIC-EXTENT-FUNCTION, version 1
- From: Jon L White <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 5 Apr 89 17:32:08 PDT
- Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: David A. Moon's message of Wed, 5 Apr 89 11:47 EDT <19890405154713.0.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
re: It's my belief that a close reading of the GLS and KMP amendment to
DYNAMIC-EXTENT (which was passed out at the meeting last week and
was unanimously adopted by X3J13 provides an unambiguous answer to
each of your concerns.
Well, the difficulty centers on how one interprets the word "identical"
in Sandra's proposal. I would invite you to make your interpretation,
and put it into unambiguous words, explicitly in this proposal.
By the bye, do you agree that a single declaration name -- DYNAMIC-EXTENT
-- is satisfactory for both contexts? A reasonable alternative might
simply be to amend the previously passed proposal to include the function
-- JonL --