[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Retraction

To: "David A. Moon" <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Subject: Retraction
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1986 15:05:00 -0000
Cc: Common-Lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
In-reply-to: Msg of 31 Jan 1986 20:18-EST from David A. Moon <Moon at SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU

    Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that we all agree that those two
    forms are equivalent.  The questions are (less important) does Common Lisp
    say that these are legal forms, and (much more important) does Common Lisp
    presently contain everything needed to effectively make use of that
    programming technique.

I believe that the consensus is that they are legal forms, the waffling
language about top-level forms notwithstanding.  And I feel strongly
that the language has everything NEEDED to effectively make use of that
programming technique.  We are missing a few things that would make it
more CONVENIENT, but those can easily be added on an
implementation-specific basis.

-- Scott

Prev by Date: Defmacro inside of a let
Next by Date: get-setf-method-multiple-value
Previous by thread: Retraction
Next by thread: Retraction
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread