[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: issue COMPILE-ENVIRONMENT-CONSISTENCY
- To: Jeff Dalton <"jeff%aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK"@multimax.arpa>, pierson <@multimax.arpa,@multimax.arpa:pierson@mist>
- Subject: Re: issue COMPILE-ENVIRONMENT-CONSISTENCY
- From: Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
- Date: Wed, 7 Sep 88 21:56:58 BST
- Cc: cl-compiler <@multimax.arpa:firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Obviously, we need a term which allows a reasonable number of
> implementation options without allowing GCC-like obnoxious behavior.
I am not convinced that we do.
> This is part of what the whole committee has to consider when we
> decide what our new set of error terms should be. My claim is simply
> that we badly need to break "is an error" down into some more
> controlled and useful cases everywhere in the standard.
> PS: In fact the CLOS spec defines "unspecified" as harmless at worst.
> There is another term, "undefined", that allows crash and burn.
> (88-002R, pp. 1-6,1-7)
I would be interested to know how this distiction works in practice.
I suppose "not immediately harmful" might work.