[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[hpfclp!paul%hplabs.csnet: LCM]
- To: common-lisp@sail
- Subject: [hpfclp!paul%hplabs.csnet: LCM]
- From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK.ARPA>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1985 15:56:00 -0000
- Cc: gls@THINK.ARPA
- In-reply-to: <FAHLMAN.12118891589.BABYL@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1985 17:39 EDT
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA@think>
This one's for you. I can't remember how or whether this discussion
finally got resolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 13 June 1985 09:48-EDT
From: hpfclp!paul%hplabs.csnet at csnet-relay.arpa
To: hplabs!Fahlman
Re: LCM
MMDF-Warning: Parse error in preceding line at CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.
Scott,
Is the definition of LCM (12.4) being modified so that it will
accept 0 arguments? If so, is the result 1?
Paul Beiser
Hewlett-Packard
Ft. Collins, Colorado
uucp: ...{ihnp4,hplabs}!hpfcla!paul
arpa: "hpfclp!paul%hplabs.csnet"@csnet-relay
I believe everyone agrees that *if* LCM is to accept zero arguments
then it should return 1. I strongly recommend that all implementors
support this case as an extension to Common Lisp, and intend to
recommend the change when we update Common Lisp.
--Guy