[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: Re: standard-type-classes
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 87 18:49 EST
- In-reply-to: <870122-150825-1274@Xerox>
Date: 22 Jan 87 15:10 PST
From: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>
NIL seems like a good name for the bottom of the class lattice, but if
CLASS-NAME can return NIL for unnamed classes, then NIL isn't such a
good name (too bad though). How about BOTTOM, or NOT-T, or EMPTY?
Unless Common Lisp is going to change the name of the type specifier for
the bottom of its type (not-really-a-)lattice, I think it's much better
to change what CLASS-NAME returns for unnamed classes than to change the
name of the bottom class. If we need a bottom class, I think it needs
to be named NIL, because that is less confusing to a Common Lisp
programmer than any other name. I don't have a strong opinion yet on
whether or not we need a bottom class.
The draft specification as it stands contains neither CLASS-NAME nor
anonymous classes. Can we assume that someone is going to get their
act together and propose those at some point?