[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
- Subject: Re: Miscellenia
- From: kempf%hplabsz@hplabs.HP.COM
- Date: Mon, 03 Aug 87 16:32:57 MST
- Cc: common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: Your message of 02 Aug 87 17:25:00 -0700.
> ``p1-17 "It is currently under discussion whether to provide constructs
> for giving generic functions local names." Do we want to have this
> discussion, or to punt on this syntax. I recall we did come up with some
> reasonble semantics for a GFLET and GFLABELS.''
> I am willing to write up a proposal for this, basing it on our latest
> thoughts from the mail, if people wish. I do not feel strongly about
> this at the moment.
I also don't feel strongly about it at the moment, but a proposal would be
good, if other people agree. Originally, there was some talk about a
GFLAMBDA, but that didn't seem to make it into the document. If you're
open for suggestions, a useful primitive that might address all these
uses might be GFUNCTION, similar to the FUNCTION special form, except
it takes multiple lambda's as arguments.
> [Note: Hackers are proud of having invented the `mumble' convention. However,
> there is rarely anything new under the sun. Here is a quote from the Saturday
> August 25, 1753 Adventurer by Samuel Johnson:
> ``I remember,'' says he, ``it was on just such a morning as
> this that I and my lord Mumble and the Duke of Tenterden were
> out upon a ramble....''
> ``Tenterden'' is someone who tends a den.]
Interesting. My English friends tend to use "doobrey" as an unbound in
similar circumstances, viz. DEF<doobrey>. Perhaps, in the 200 odd years
since we've been independent, the language has diverged, like the
pronounciation of "clerk".
I used to occasionally use "X" as an unbound, but, thanks to
Bob Schieffler, that's out now.