[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Is a class object a valid method specializer?
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Is a class object a valid method specializer?
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1991 21:51-0500
- Cc: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <9103190238.AA09399@kuwait>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1991 21:38 EST
From: Jon L White <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I hope we don't have to debate this publicly; can't we just agree
amongst ourselves not to bring it up at Mountain View this week?
If there is no one disagreeing, why should bringing it up imply debate?
I am very uncomfortable with the idea of retaining something in the
standard which I cannot cite a reference for. As a matter of policy, I
would prefer for things that have semantic impact to be voted upon so
that people don't get the idea that I'm abusing my power as editor. Why
wouldn't this just be a quick and simple unanimous vote in favor of
blessing the wording that is perhaps-accidentally now present in the spec?
[In other words, if there's someone who would vote against it, can they
please identify themselves now?]
This is also important because some people are tracking CLtL+Cleanups (by
which I generically include LOOP, Errors, and CLOS as cleanups) and assuming
they are up to date. Little details like this which are not part of the
database audit trail are sure to show up somewhere down the line as even