[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: issue SHARP-COMMA-CONFUSION
- To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: Re: issue SHARP-COMMA-CONFUSION
- From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 12 Jan 89 12:14 PST
- Cc: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>'s message of Thu, 12 Jan 89 14:57 EST
I like the argument "we should take it out and users should convert their
code" better than the argument "we should take it out and implementors
should continue to provide it as an 'extension'".
I'd even like "we should take it out and implementors can offer it in a
'backward compatibility' mode". This could be done by having the CLtL
readtable different than the ANSI Common Lisp readtable, for example.