[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: issue COMPILE-ENVIRONMENT-CONSISTENCY
- To: "email@example.com"@multimax (Sandra J Loosemore)
- Subject: Re: issue COMPILE-ENVIRONMENT-CONSISTENCY
- From: Dan L. Pierson <pierson%mist@multimax.ARPA>
- Date: Wed, 07 Sep 88 13:31:34 EDT
- Cc: cl-compiler%sail.stanford.edu@multimax
- In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 06 Sep 88 10:20:27 -0600. <8809061620.AA14719@defun.utah.edu>
"Crash and burn" does seem a bit excessive. The problem is that the
error terminology in CLtL is too vague. We could borrow the conventions
the CLOS folks came up with and say that the behavior is "unspecified"
I think that we have to do that in general. One of the things that
the whole committee really needs to decide in October is to use one of
the two new error terminologies (CLOS or Pitman) everywhere. This
means that "we" (probably a sub-project of the editorial committee)
has to change every use of "is an error" to one of the new terms.