[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: CLOS-CONDITIONS (Version 2)
- To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: Re: Issue: CLOS-CONDITIONS (Version 2)
- From: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: Thu, 6 Oct 88 15:27 PDT
- Cc: CL-ERROR-HANDLING@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- Fcc: BD:>Gregor>mail>outgoing-mail-4.text.newest
- In-reply-to: <881006162757.4.KMP@BOBOLINK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Line-fold: no
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 88 16:27 EDT
From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Changes per Moon's suggestions.
- I changed the way slot descriptions are handled.
This has the most chance of being controversial.
In the design of CLOS, we concluded that there were a lot of good
reasons not to do this automatic interning. It seems to me those
same good reasons apply here. It seems to me that doing the automatic
interning here introduces potential bugs, and makes the language as a
whole less elegant.
Why not just make people use exactly CLOS slot specifier syntax?