[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: issue QUOTE-MAY-COPY, version 2
- To: sandra <@cs.utah.edu:sandra@defun>, Jon L White <@sail.stanford.edu:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: issue QUOTE-MAY-COPY, version 2
- From: Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 88 15:55:52 GMT
- Cc: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: Sandra J Loosemore's message of Wed, 14 Dec 88 09:13:36 MST
> > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 88 00:34:11 PST
> > From: Jon L White <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > re: QUOTE-MAY-COPY:ALWAYS
> > To me, the choice of names for this alternative is somewhat loaded; it
> > seems to imply "excesssive, copying work must ALWAYS take place". How
> > about a name like EXPLICITLY-VAGUE?
> Fine with me.
It does say "MAY-COPY", so I don't understand it as "must copy".
Anyway, I don't really like EXPLICITLY-VAGUE. Is there some better
way to say "allowed by not requried"? I'd suggest UNSPECIFIED, but
that too may sound loaded. Don't we need some general way to say this
sort of thing in the standard?