[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: TRACE Proposal (Version 1)
- To: common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: Re: TRACE Proposal (Version 1)
- From: Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 22 Aug 87 00:31 PDT
- In-reply-to: kempf%hplabsz@hplabs.HP.COM's message of Mon, 10 Aug 87 11:45:31 MST
I've managed to convince myself that definition types (which are
primarily for the use of DOCUMENTATION, and a general, programmatic way
of "undoing" a DEFmumble), are pretty much independent of "function
specs", which are handles on ways of getting at things which might have
breakpoints or tracepoints associated with them.
What I'm saying is that you should go ahead with your proposal for
function-specs in trace/break without worrying about any conflict from
the definition-type proposal which I have not finished writing.